2007-07-18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 18, 2007
INDEX
Area Variance No. 34-2007 The Glen at Hiland Meadows 1.
Tax Map No. 296.8-1-3
Area Variance No. 28-2007 Steven Greene 1.
Tax Map No. 253.3-1-25
Area Variance No. 26-2007 Joseph & Cynthia Didio 10.
Tax Map No. 239.20-1-7
Area Variance No. 44-2007 John Koskinas 27.
Tax Map No. 297.7-1-4.2
Area Variance No. 46-2007 Christine T. Lecce 33.
Tax Map No. 226.19-1-68 & 86
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 18, 2007
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, ACTING SECRETARY
ROY URRICO
JOYCE HUNT
ALLAN BRYANT
RICHARD GARRAND
JOAN JENKIN, ALTERNATE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MATT FULLER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. ABBATE-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hearing dated 18 July 2007. Prior to setting this
hearing in motion, I would like to acquaint you with the information that will familiarize
you with the responsibilities of this Board, the mandated legal requirements we are
guided by, and the procedures for a hearing before this Board. The function of the
Zoning Board of Appeals is to listen to and consider all evidence that appears on the
record, and may bear upon the issue we are deciding. This Zoning Board of Appeals
can grant (or deny) two types of relief; interpretive and variance. In either case, the
Board will affirm, reverse or modify the enforcement officer’s decision. In doing so, this
Board will either permit or deny the requested relief. If the appeal is for an interpretation,
this Board’s decision will be based upon the Town of Queensbury zoning regulations. If
the appeal is for a variance, this Board’s decision will be based upon the standards of
proof contained in NYS Town Law 267-b. Additionally, the Zoning Board of Appeals may
only authorize the minimum variance necessary to relieve the applicant. Other than
administrative items, public comments will be invited on each appeal, however, in the
interest of time please be crisp, organized and limit your comments to only the facts and
information given this evening. On opening the public hearing the public will be allowed
a maximum of 5 minutes to comment on a specific appeal. The purpose of this time
limitation is to provide each member of the public an opportunity to be heard, and also to
limit the length of the hearing to a reasonable time frame. All questions from the
appellant or the public will be addressed to this Board. All dialogues during the hearing
will be between the appellant and this Board, and I’m going to ask, respectfully, that our
Secretary please monitor the time. Mr. Secretary, at this time, do we have any
correspondence that should be read into the record, and, if so, would you be kind
enough to do that, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Sure. I think we’ve got perhaps two here that we should read in now.
The third item that you had handed me deals specifically with one variance that probably
at the beginning of that variance would be the time to read that in.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-Let’s see. One we have one letter from John D. Svare, from Bartlett,
Pontiff, Stewart and Rhodes, regarding the Rolf and Luise Ahlers variance 43-2007, and
he’s written to the Chairman saying, “As you know, our firm represents the Ahlers in
connection with the above referenced matter. We have received the Board’s resolution
tabling the matter to the August 2007 ZBA meeting. The Board has also requested
additional information from the Ahlers. Please be advised that we are in the process of
collecting the requested information. However, Jim Miller of Northfield Design is
unfortunately on vacation until July 20, 2007. Since Mr. Miller’s evaluation will be a part
of our submission, I am writing to respectfully request that the Ahlers’ application be
tabled to the September ZBA meeting. We anticipate that we will be able to submit the
requested information by August 15, 2007. If this is acceptable, please contact me to
confirm. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Bartlett Pontiff,
th
Stewart & Rhodes P.C. John D. Svare” And Mr. Abbate responded on July 16 saying
“Per your letter dated July 12, 2007 I will move a motion, 18 July 2007 to table Area
Variance No. 43-2007 to the September 2007 hearings. Your letter will be entered into
th
the record at the 18 July hearing.”
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
AV 34-2007 THE GLEN AT HILAND MEADOWS: TABLED ON 5/23/07 FOR 60 DAYS
AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2007 SEQRA TYPE: PREVIOUS PUD THE GLEN AT
HILAND MEADOWS, INC. AGENT(S): DAVID WENDTH, SENIOR PROJECT
MANAGER NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. OWNER(S): EDDY PROPERTY
SERVICES/GLENS FALLS HOME ZONE: PUD LOCATION: 39 LONGVIEW DRIVE
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 12 INDEPENDENT LIVING
APARTMENTS (12,280 SQ. FT.) AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. RELIEF IS
REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS RELIEF
FROM THE OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.:
TOO MANY TO LIST WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MAY 9, 2007 LOT SIZE: 45
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.8-1-3 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-4-040
MR. ABBATE-I do have one other item that I’d like to move this morning. It’s an
administrative item, and it concerns Area Variance 34-2007, and that is the Glen At
Hiland Meadows. On May 23, 2007 we extended it for 60 days. The 60 days
th
unfortunately expires several days prior to the 25 of July hearing. So I’m going to move
a motion to extend Area Variance No. 34-2007 to be heard during an August 2007
hearing date.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2007 THE GLEN AT HILAND
MEADOWS, INC., Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Joyce Hunt:
39 Longview Drive. To be heard during the August 2007 hearing date.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-Okay. The motion to approve, extending Area Variance No. 34-2007 for
the August 2007 hearing month is seven yes, zero no. As such Area Variance No. 34-
2007 is extended to a meeting during August 2007.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II STEVEN GREENE OWNER(S):
STEVEN GREENE ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: 1 KNOLLS ROAD NORTH
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 28 BY 28 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING
GARAGE WHICH CONSTITUTES A SECOND GARAGE ON THE PROPERTY.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR A
SECOND GARAGE ON THE PROPERTY. CROSS REF.: BP 2006-392 POLE BARN;
BP 2005-369 DECK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: APRIL 11, 2007 ADIRONDACK
PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.92 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 253.3-1-25 SECTION:
179-4-030; 179-5-020
STEPHANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 28-2007, Steven Greene, Meeting Date: July 18,
2007 “Project Location: 1 Knolls Road North Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of a 784 sq. ft. pole barn.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for a second garage on the property.
In addition, rear setback relief of 13-feet from the minimum 30-foot requirement for the R-
3 zone, Ridge Knolls subdivision. R-3 zoning was in effect at the time of approval for the
Ridge Knoll Subdivision.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location
on the property.
2. Feasible alternatives:
It appears as though the proposed structure could be moved southerly, to the edge of the
driveway, approximately 12 feet and significantly reduce the relief request.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
The relief for a second garage on the property where one is allowed may be considered
as substantial at 100%.
The request for 13-feet of rear setback relief from the minimum 30-feet may be
considered as moderate at 43%.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Support letters from 6 neighboring properties were submitted with the application.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2006-392: Pending, 960 sq. ft. (24 x 40) pole barn. Not yet modified to match this
current proposal (28x28)
Staff comments:
Support from the neighboring property most affected by the setback relief request
(Mangiacasale) has been submitted for this revised proposal. However, with the
reduction in size and the apparent feasibility for a more compliant location it would
appear as though a real alternative exists that would require minimal, if any setback
relief.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. The petitioner and her client obviously are at the table. Would you
be kind enough both of you please to speak into the microphone, identify yourself and
your relationship to this appeal, please.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stephanie Bitter attorney for the applicant.
STEVEN GREENE
MR. GREENE-Steven Greene, applicant.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. You know what our procedures are, Counselor.
MS. BITTER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Are you prepared to proceed?
MS. BITTER-I am.
MR. ABBATE-Please do.
MS. BITTER-As this Board is aware, Mr. Greene was present before you in April. At that
time, he was seeking a 1200 square foot proposed pole barn. Because of the concerns
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
that were raised by this Board, Mr. Greene chose to modify the application that he is now
seeking a pole barn which is 784 square feet in size. He reduced it significantly due to
your concerns. As a result he’s now only requesting the two area variances as opposed
to the three that were originally sought, the second structure or the second garage being
the first, and the second being the rear setback, which he’s been able to move forward a
little closer so now that he has 17 feet of relief on that rear setback line. The third was
obviously because he was originally in excess of the 900 square feet limitation, but he
was able to eliminate that. Just to kind of recap what he had mentioned in the April
meeting, the reason he needs this pole barn is because of his need for outdoor storage,
or the outdoor storage that he has. He needs to be able to place that in a structure.
Right now he has recreational items, motorcycles, snowmobiles, some lawn equipment,
that is currently being left outside, and unfortunately he feels very insecure about that
because he is on a corner lot. It could be susceptible to theft or vandalism. In addition to
the fact that it’s now being exposed to the weather, on this lovely day we had, it just got
all rained upon. At this time he does have a temporary carport, which I’m not sure if any
of you had a chance to visit the site. It’s located in the rear of the parcel, and it is kind of
relieving him of some need for the outdoor storage covering at least, but it’s temporary,
and it’s not very attractive. So he would like to remove that as soon as he can. Although
the applicant does have an attached two car garage which was mentioned at the last
time, last meeting, it’s a two stall garage. There’s a separating wall right in the center of
it. So it really limits his storage ability because of the very narrow structure that it is. In
addition, he does have a basement. I don’t think this was mentioned at the last meeting,
but it only has a four foot high ceiling because of the water table in that area. So his
storage capacity in the basement is very limited. This barn will allow him to have the
storage that he needs outside, as well as eliminate the carport that is existing at this
point. The balancing test, in our opinion, when it’s done, the balance, the applicant’s
benefit outweighs any detriment that can be deemed to exist to the community, first
being the benefit, he’s going to have a structure that’s going to relieve him of his outdoor
storage problem, as well as give him the security that he wants. The effect on the
character of the neighborhood, it’s going to be positive. We have letters of support from
the neighbors, demonstrating that they feel that this is a good application, as well as a
letter of support from the neighbor that’s going to be most effected by the setback. In
addition, Mr. Greene had mentioned that the barn is going to be of similar design to the
structure right now, as well as similar material. So it’ll be a nice layout. It’s not going to,
in any way, be an eyesore. Feasible alternatives. In our opinion, with regards to the
variance for the second structure, no. We really need an outdoor storage facility, or for
the indoor or outdoor items. For the (lost word) it’s the applicant’s position that he’s
placed this barn in is the best suitable for the items he’s planning on storing in the barn,
for purposes of turning radius, and just the area in which to get it into the barn. Is the
relief substantial? Not when considering the benefit that’s going to be provided to the
applicant as well as the support that’s being provided by the neighbors. The last item is
that this is not going to have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental
conditions in the area. The first being because it’s going to be of a similar design to the
structure, the second being that there’s currently a tree line, both against the rear
property line as well as Ridge Road, so that this pole barn is going to be tucked into that
corner so it’s going to be not visible to many of the travelers on Ridge Road, and the last
being that it’s similar to another house that’s located in the area. I’m not sure if any of
you, once you left Mr. Greene’s house, were traveling south, but on the corner of Ridge
Road and Oak Valley there’s a house that has a three car garage and a pole barn on the
lot. So it’s similar to other items. That concludes my presentation.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, and I’m going to ask members of the Board
if they’d like to address the issue. One of the Board members has already indicated they
do have a couple of questions. Mrs. Jenkin, please.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I have a question. The purpose for the pole barn. One of the
letters, original letters that was sent in, stated that she was objecting to this being
approved since he has a two car garage now, and I think his intention is he will start
operating his landscaping business out of the 1200 square foot building. Well, I
understand that it’s now 784, but I am, I guess I am questioning you whether you will be
using this property for your landscaping business.
MR. GREENE-I have property in Fort Ann. The business is, all my businesses are
located in Washington County. I have property there. I do drive a company truck, which
is my personal vehicle.
MRS. JENKIN-So you are not operating your business out of your home then?
MR. GREENE-I have personal items. That’s it.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
MRS. JENKIN-Because I have driven past myself, and this is what alerted me to it, and I
saw at one time, I go past that road a lot and I bike on that road a lot, and I saw two or
three trucks with the trailers behind, and I saw three or four tractors, and today when I
drove by, because I was going out to view another one, I saw two tractors being washed
down, and that’s why I questioned this. If the pole barn itself is for your personal use,
784 square feet is not a huge barn, but I just question your purpose.
MR. GREENE-No. We got done with a job, we got back to the house. Everybody, you
just cleaned up, and you dropped the equipment back off in Fort Ann. Sometimes we
stop at the house.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Counsel mentioned the fact that you have items that you plan on storing in
the barn. Would those items include the two pick up trucks, the two trailers and several
earth moving vehicles that are parked in your driveway as well?
MR. GREENE-Earth moving? My pick up I drive, yes. I have a ’93 New Yorker, and I
have another teenage daughter getting ready to get her license. So we’re going to have
numerous vehicles.
MR. ABBATE-Well, it’s admirable, too, and I’ll get to the Board members in just a
second. Counsel says that we want to make sure that the property is attractive, and I
certainly would agree, Counselor. By removing those work vehicles that are there, the
two trucks, the two trailers and earth moving equipment certainly would improve the
appearance of the property. Gentlemen, ladies of the Board, any other questions?
MR. BRYANT-I have a question, actually a statement and a question. I think, based on
Section 179-5-080, relative to Home Occupations, even if Mr. Greene were bringing his
lawn machines home, as long as they were stored inside one of the garages, that would
be acceptable and that’s allowed in the Code. You’re allowed to have a business in your
private residence. Okay. He says he doesn’t have a business, but you are allowed to
have a business with certain restrictions. So, I don’t know that that’s a real problem. I
want to address something that I stated at the last meeting was relative to the kind of
balance between storage area and garage space. You have an existing garage. Is it
possible to create the storage by some other means? In other words, you are permitted
to have a storage shed of 500 square feet, I think. Is that correct?
MR. BROWN-I’m sorry?
MS. BITTER-A storage shed of 500 square feet.
MR. BROWN-One of those per parcel, yes.
MR. BRYANT-Yes. Okay. So I mean is that a possible solution, and why not?
MS. BITTER-He already has a storage shed on the property.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, okay. Is that the answer? I mean, can he storage the stuff that he
wants to store in the storage shed instead of building a garage?
MS. BITTER-The problem is, is that those items, they’re already being utilized. He’s
already pretty much exceeded his storage capacity for the indoor storage that he does
have, including the shed. That’s why we’ve incorporated the shed on the site plan,
together with the proposed barn.
MR. ABBATE-Question to the Zoning Administrator. This is Single Family Residence,
correct, SFR?
MS. BITTER-SR, I think.
MR. BROWN-I think the zoning is SR.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Is, in fact, an occupation, a home business authorized there?
MR. BROWN-A home occupation is a potential, it depends on what it is, yes. There’s a
criteria.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
MR. ABBATE-That’s a good question. It depends on what it is. All right. Let’s do it this
way. All right, Mr. Greene, what is your profession, so we can determine what it is.
MR. BROWN-Well, I don’t think that’s, it’s not part of the variance.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. BROWN-We can certainly monitor it and pursue any enforcement actions if we find
something there that’s out of the ordinary, but it’s not part of the variance request tonight.
You can certainly talk about it, but I’m not in a position to make a determination on that
right now. I don’t know enough about the use.
MR. ABBATE-Well, what you’re basically stating right now, Counselor, is that he’s not
operating a home business from that home, is that correct?
MS. BITTER-That’s his position. He owns a landscaping business. So at times he, and I
believe your son is a part of that business.
MR. GREENE-Right.
MS. BITTER-Go back to the house and they finalize what they need to do and then bring
the equipment back to Fort Ann.
MR. ABBATE-So you would have no problem, in the event that it was approved, with a
stipulation that there be no home occupation going on on your property, correct?
MR. GREENE-If I leave a truck and my trailer there, but I mow my own lawn, you know,
when you start narrowing it down, if someone drives by and my truck and trailer is there.
I’m a Corrections Officer. I work four to twelve. So, when I get out, I get up at six o’clock
in the morning, usually I keep one truck and a trailer for me that I leave in the morning.
MR. ABBATE-One truck. This is what’s confusing me, but there were two trucks and two
trailers and moving equipment on your property, yesterday, the other day.
MRS. JENKIN-No, a couple of weeks ago.
MR. ABBATE-A couple of weeks ago.
MR. GREENE-There’s always equipment on my property. I do nine properties behind us
in our development, and when they get done they stop at the house. You go up to Pilot
Knob, they stop at the house. There’s always people around at the house.
MS. BITTER-But I think for purposes of storing those items, he’s saying that they’re
stored at the Fort Ann property. The trucks will ultimately get back to the Fort Ann
property. It’s not his intention to keep them at this personal residence. This is for his
personal residence. He has separate property.
MR. ABBATE-So it was unusual, a couple of weeks ago, that all that equipment was
there?
MS. BITTER-It’s not as if he’s conducting all of this right on this site.
MR. ABBATE-So that’s my question. It was rather unusual that all that equipment was
there a couple of weeks ago on your property. That was unusual, correct?
MR. GREENE-Right.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Anybody else have any questions?
MR. URRICO-I have a question. We’ve gone from a 1200 foot pole barn to a 784 square
foot pole barn, so we’ve lost 500 feet.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. URRICO-When you were with us last time, you said you must have a 1200 square
foot. What changed that now you can operate with 500 square feet less?
MS. BITTER-I think because he knew it wasn’t going to happen.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
MR. GREENE-I was told to put in for the biggest, and they’d just bring it down or
whatever.
MR. URRICO-Well, how much more can you lop off of that?
MR. ABBATE-You’re saying that you’re willing to negotiate this, correct?
MR. GREENE-That’s where I started out.
MS. BITTER-I think he’s at his bottom negotiating at this point.
MR. ABBATE-He’s at the bottom line right now, Counselor?
MS. BITTER-Yes. This is what he really needs.
MR. URRICO-But we’re still dealing with a second garage.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. URRICO-That’s a big variance.
MS. BITTER-Right. It’s 100% relief, but obviously we’re not exceeding the area that that
accessory structure can be.
MR. URRICO-But you’re exceeding the number of garages.
MS. BITTER-That’s true. That is true, but it’s due to the need and the fact that he
doesn’t have a basement that allows him to have the storage that he really requires.
MR. URRICO-Not everybody has a garage period, right?
MS. BITTER-That’s true, but unfortunately he’s trying to make the site as much as
aesthetically pleasing as he can, and he feels that this will benefit not only himself but
the neighbors.
MR. BRYANT-I have a question. I had asked you the question, last time you were here,
what size was your existing garage. Did you determine that at all?
MR. GREENE-Actually, we measured the smaller bay today.
MS. BITTER-Right. I think you said it was 20 by 11.
MR. GREENE-20 by 11. Yes, and actually we’d only use it for storage.
MS. BITTER-Right. There was some motorcycle in it and some tools and equipment
mostly, because it’s so narrow that you can’t fit a car in it.
MR. BRYANT-So your garage is 20 by 11?
MR. GREENE-No, that’s one bay. I didn’t measure the other side.
MS. BITTER-The other side was approximately, I think you said, 35 by 11. They’re both
narrow, but the other one was very long, and again, there was tools and other lawn
equipment that was incorporated in there.
MRS. JENKIN-So each of them is 11 feet wide. One is longer than the other, and it
shows on this.
MR. GREENE-I have a furnace in one side of the garage. So I don’t like to park anything
in there with fuel or anything else.
MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, ladies of the Board, do you have any other questions? Okay.
If not, I’ll continue on here, and I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance
No. 28-2007. Do we have any members of the public who’d like to address it? Please
raise your hand and I will recognize you.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
MR. ABBATE-I don’t see any hands raised. So I will continue on here. I’m going to ask
members to offer their comments, and I’d like to inform the public that the comments that
are going to be offered by the members are directed to the Chairman, and the comments
expressed by Board members to the Chairman are not open to debate. Again, I’ll
respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates we concern ourselves with
the evidence which appears on the record to support our conclusions and the evidence
relied upon should be specifically stated, and I’m going to ask members to please offer
their comments on Area Variance No. 28-2007, please.
MR. BRYANT-Could I ask one more question?
MR. ABBATE-You certainly may.
MR. BRYANT-One more question, please. Is there a way to convert your existing
garage into a, instead of having a garage, have a storage area with a different type of
door? In other words, if you change that to a regular door, it would no longer be a
garage, it would be a storage area, right? And so therefore he would be allowed a 900
square foot garage. I mean, if you’re not using it for a garage now, couldn’t you do that
and achieve the same?
MR. GREENE-Aesthetically the house, I don’t know if you looked at the house at all, with
the high peaks, and aesthetically I don’t see how you’re going to, that would ruin the
appearance of the house.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t know if it would necessarily ruin the appearance, but I’m just
questioning whether or not you could accommodate it that way, because then you
wouldn’t actually have to be here. You’d have a 900 square foot garage, and your
current garage, which is used for storage only now, would be a storage area.
MS. BITTER-But I think, and Craig hasn’t chimed in on this, but I’m not sure what type of
doors would be necessary to convert it.
MR. BRYANT-Well, you couldn’t have a door that a car could fit through, I mean,
basically, you know, is that correct? Yes.
MS. BITTER-So you’d still have to make modifications to the garage exterior, and the
doors that he’s planning are, it’s going to ruin the aesthetics of it.
MR. BRYANT-And then you could get a bigger garage in the end. You could get 900
square feet.
MS. BITTER-Right, but it’s essentially modifying the structure, or at least in the
applicant’s opinion having a negative effect on the structure, as opposed to having a
positive effect on the site.
MR. BRYANT-Well, you haven’t demonstrated the negative effect yet. So I’m not
necessarily agreeing with you, but that’s okay.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. BRYANT-I’m done.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Let me continue on. I’m going to,
again, ask members to offer their comments, and I’ve already indicated, reminded you
about the precedence mandates that we concern ourselves with the evidence on the
record. Okay. Do we have a volunteer who’d like to go first? Okay. Thank you, Rick, I
appreciate that.
MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome.
MR. GARRAND-I think what we’re ultimately trying to do here is prevent this property
from becoming a parking area for a landscaping business. Although Mr. Greene has
assured us that it won’t, his business equipment will not be stored at this facility, and he
won’t dispatch his equipment from here, it’s still a concern, but by the same token, the
most affected neighbors in this area approve this project. They don’t seem to have a
problem with it. One hundred percent relief for the second garage on this property is
significant, but by the same token, the neighbors don’t have a problem with it. He’s cut
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
down his request down to 784 square feet. at this point I would be in favor of this
application.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Who’d like to go next? Joan? Please.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I think your attempts to downsize and negotiate the size of this has
been, I appreciate that. I think, do you still have that temporary storage, the tent thing,
and that would be removed.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MRS. JENKIN-And the building would be put in that place, and so I feel that actually
there would be a desirable change to the neighborhood with a nice building in there
rather than the other thing. I agree with Rick, Mr. Garrand, that it will, with more storage,
then none of this equipment will be outside anyhow, and anything that you would have
there. So I would be in favor of this.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Chuck, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I struggle with these kinds of issues, because I can understand
the desire to house all the equipment that’s on the piece of property. I can understand
the neighbors being in favor of it because it would be nicer to have that equipment out of
sight and in a building. So I can see some definite benefit to the applicant. On the other
hand, even though the State has laid out the criteria for us the way they have, they also
say a variance is forever. So we’re balancing the benefit to the current owner of the
property against the detriment forever, and that’s where I get hung up on a lot of these,
you know, that the good intentions of the current owner say nothing about subsequent
owners, and that bothers me. In this particular case, it also bothers me trying to visualize
that garage, where it would be going. It strikes me that it’s going to make that area look
crowded, between the applicant’s house and the house to the north. I keep coming back
to the thought that this is a subdivision. It’s not a farm, and we’ve had several situations
like this before that bothered me the same way, and I think there are some alternatives,
perhaps not totally inexpensive ones or necessarily highly desirable ones, but there’s
other places to store snowmobiles during the summer, for instance. There’s places to
store boats during the winter. Rent a space. There’s a variety of places that will provide
storage for these kinds of things. So I think there’s some alternatives there, and I finally
come down, too, with trying to balance the idea that the current applicant may or may not
be on that property forever. He may retire and move to Florida in 20 years, in which
case the snowmobiles and the other things will go with him, or get sold. On the other
hand, if he’s allowed to build another structure there, that’s going to be there forever.
That’s not going to disappear when he moves. So, in my mind, when I sort it all out, I
think the detriment, I think it’s going to change the character of the neighborhood, and I
think the detriment, in long term, for me, is greater than the benefit to the current
applicant, so I’m going to be opposed.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I still believe that there’s a feasible alternative,
either in switching over the existing garage to a storage and building a 900 square foot
garage or building a large storage shed on the property to alleviate some of the storage
issues, but that being said, I also agree that there is going to be a benefit to the
applicant, and I agree that most of the neighbors like the project because of the
equipment storage out in the open, and that’s going to alleviate that, and I think that’s
going to be a big plus. I’m really hung up on the 100% relief for the second garage, but I
think, because of the circumstance, I would be slightly in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Well, I think we’re moving in the right direction, but I’m not ready to sign off
on this yet. I think this is still 100% relief. I think the situation is self-created. That’s why
I’m not as, I understand why you need it, but you need it because of the situation you
created there, not because of something else that happened, and I understand the
neighbors are in favor of it, but you’re also in a subdivision, and neighborhoods change,
and if you have a second garage, the next person that comes before us from that same
neighborhood can say it’s not a change to the character of the neighborhood because
the garage, the second garage is already on somebody’s property. Even though
precedent doesn’t matter in considering the case, it does change the character of the
neighborhood slightly, and that changes the way we perceive it. So in essence you’d be
changing the Code in that area perhaps, and that’s why I have the same qualms that Mr.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
McNulty had as well. So, at this point, I would not be in favor of it, but like I said last
time, I would be in favor of compromise. I think we’re moving in the right direction, but
I’m not ready yet.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I can understand the reasoning for needing the second garage,
and I also can understand that you wouldn’t want to change the outside of the house to
change the garage into something else, and I think, you know, we were talking about
compromise, and I think you have come quite a ways. You’ve eliminated the one
setback, the size of the pole barn, and you have decreased the need for setback. So I
would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-You would be in favor. Okay. Thank you very much. Apparently I’m
going to fall in the minority. I agree with Mr. McNulty and I also agree with Mr. Urrico. I
think Staff is correct. I think basically that there are real alternatives that do exist that
you folks can utilize, and under the current circumstances, I would not be in favor of it.
However, having said that, we can continue on, and I’m going to close the public hearing
for Area Variance No. 28-2007.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I respectfully remind the members that we have the task of balancing
the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, and while State law sets forth
five factors to take into consideration, unlike a Use Variance test, this Board need not
find in favor of the applicant on every one of the five factors. Now I’m going to request a
volunteer to introduce a motion for Area Variance No. 28-2007. Do I have a volunteer,
please?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion.
MR. ABBATE-Please.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2007 STEVEN GREENE,
Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin:
1 Knolls Road North. The applicant proposes construction of a 784 square foot pole
barn. The relief required, the applicant requests relief for a second garage on the
property. In addition, rear setback relief of 13 feet from the minimum 30 foot requirement
for the R-3 zone, Ridge Knolls subdivision, and R-3 zoning was in effect at the time of
the approval for the Ridge Knolls subdivision. Whether the benefit could be achieved by
any other means feasible to the applicant, and we’ve talked about that changing the
garage and the house was not feasible, and he has decreased the size of the second
garage. So to the applicant there are no other feasible alternatives. An undesirable
change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties, I don’t think so. The
neighbors are in favor of it and it’s going to be an attractive building, in keeping with the
house. Whether the request is substantial. It is substantial because it’s requesting a
second garage on the property. Would the request have adverse physical or
environmental effects on the neighborhood? I don’t think so, and it is self-created only in
the fact that Mr. Green wants more storage space. So I would ask that we approve Area
Variance No. 28-2007.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand
NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 28-2007 is four yes, three no. Area
Variance No. 28-2007 is approved.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II JOSEPH & CYNTHIA DIDIO
OWNER(S): JOSEPH & CYNTHIA DIDIO ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 2966 STATE
ROUTE 9L APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
PROPERTY INCLUDING A 326 SQ. FT. DECK/STAIRWAY STRUCTURE AS WELL AS
A 96 SQ. FT. DOCK ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PROPERTY
LINE SETBACK AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM SHORELINE SETBACK
REQUIREMENT; REVISED PLAN CALLS FOR RELOCATION OF JACUZZI AND
REMOVAL OF DOCK ADDITION. ALSO, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
IMPERMEABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE. CROSS REF.: BP 2006-437; SPR ; AV 34-
2003; BP 2003-112; BP 2003-347 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: APRIL 11, 2007
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.20-
1-7 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-5-050
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
MR. MC NULTY-At this point I’ll read in the other piece of correspondence we had that
the Chairman handed me a while ago.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-This letter is also from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, and it says,
“As you know, our firm represents Gary Banta, the adjacent property owner of Joseph
and Cynthia Didio. I have been notified that the Didios are now scheduled for July 18,
2007. As you will recall, the Didio’s application was tabled at their appearance in front of
the Board, and the Board requested further information from the Didio’s. At our request,
you re-opened the public meeting for the Didio’s next appearance. Accordingly, please
know that Mr. Banta and I will be in attendance on July 18, 2007 to reiterate Mr. Banta’s
strong opposition. You will also recall that we submitted a F.O.I.L. request seeking
copies of any and all documents relative to the Didio’s application. Ms. Dougher
promptly complied with our request. I later sent a follow up letter confirming that our
F.O.I.L. request was a continued request and we would request any additional
documentation relative to the Didio’s application. Since I have not received any new
materials from the Town, I can only assume that the Didio’s have not submitted any
amendments or modifications to their application. If this is not the case, kindly forward
the appropriate information as soon as possible. It is important that Mr. Banta and I have
th
an opportunity to review any additional documentation before the July 18 meeting. By
copy of this letter I am advising Ms. Dougher of our continued request. Thank you.
Respectfully, Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, P.C. By John D. Svare” And the
Chairman sent a response saying “I have received your letter indicating you and Mr.
Banta will be at the July 18, 2007 ZBA hearing “providing strong opposition” to the
subject Area Variance. The ZBA will acknowledge the both of you and request you
provide us with your positions on this matter. In regards to your FOIL request, if you
have as indicated in your correspondence to me, filed with Ms. Dougher that should
provide you with all documentation that is in the file. The ZBA, per se does not
participate in FOIL requests. If you have any other questions, please let me know.”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-2007, Joseph & Cynthia Didio, Meeting Date:
July 18, 2007 “Project Location: 2966 State Route 9L Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant has constructed a total 326 sq. ft. of wooden walkway and deck area. And, a
96 sq. ft. dock/platform addition.
Relief Required:
Application requires shoreline setback relief of 37.46-feet from the minimum 50-ft. for the
deck and walkway, per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Additionally, the application
requires relief to maintain a 39% impermeable percentage versus the 35% maximum
allowable. The 385 sf total for the existing shed (96sf), constructed deck and walkway
(289sf) were not included in the Site Development Data table submitted by the applicant
(pg 2 of the application). Further, the constructed deck requires 8.06 feet of relief from
the minimum 12 foot sideline setback requirement.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicants would be permitted to maintain the improvements made to their property.
2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to relocation of the structures, however, any
“near lake” locations will likely require some shoreline setback relief.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
The request for 37.46-feet of relief from the shoreline setback for the deck and walkway
may be interpreted as substantial at 75%. The requested 39% impermeable total may
be interpreted as minimal (11% of relief).
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
No letters of support were submitted with the revised application materials.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2006-437: Pending, Deck and dock.
BP 2003-347: Issued 6/4/03, 441 SQ FT LOWER DECK AND 184 SQ FT UPPER
DECK
BP 2003-112: Issued 5/22/03, 280 sq ft DOCK
Area Variance No. 34-2003: Approved 5/21/03, proposed construction of a 280 sq. ft.
straight dock. Relief requested from the side setback requirements.
Staff comments:
The revised plans appear to address some of the concerns voiced by the Board during
the previous meeting. Minutes from the April 25, 2007 meeting are included for your
review.
Site plan review is required for hard surfacing within 50-feet of the shoreline.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. ABBATE-I see that we have Counselor and his client at the table. Would you folks
be kind enough, please, to speak into the microphone, identify yourselves and your
relationship to this appeal, please.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m Michael O’Connor, from the law firm of
Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicants, Joseph Didio who is on my left, and Cindy
Didio who is on my right, and we’re here to support the application. I was retained after
last month’s meeting, or two months ago I guess. It wasn’t last month, and have gone
through the minutes. I will try not necessarily to go back to each and everything that was
in the minutes, but I think, I’ll give you a little bit of background. I think the Didio’s did
listen to the Board and try to come up with a compromise that hopefully the Board can
accept. There seems to be a lot of figures floating about, and there seem to be a lot of
different figures that were floating about in the presentation that Mr. Didio made himself,
and the application that he made, and that was the first thing that I did when I got
involved. I said I need to see, on a survey, with survey calculations, exactly what we’re
talking about. So that I can represent to the Board that these are the dimensions that we
have and this is the relief that we’re looking for. We color coated a map with all the
various elements, and I apologize that we didn’t have this when we had the maps
colored, or copied, we didn’t get them copied in color, but basically, if you will, this is the
map. This is the same map that you have before you, as far as the survey, and as far as
all of the items that are on the survey, and in truth, the only things that we’re talking
about is the wooden walkway and the landing at the foot of the wooden walkway. All the
rest of the site and the development of the rest of the site, are not part of this application,
and we had Van Dusen and Steves actually measure what this walkway was, as far as
surface, with the walkway, and it turns out that the new wood stairs, which is also
including the landing at the foot of the stairs, is 200 square feet, and that’s what we’re
talking about. We need setback relief for this 200 foot stairs from the side line and from
the lake. In the prior application, there was an addition to the dock which had been
constructed, and as I said, Mr. and Mrs. Didio have listened to the Board. That is going
to be removed. There’s also, and although I think is not part of the application, but there
was discussion about the hot tub which is on the southerly side of the wooden stairs.
Okay. That’s a temporary structure, I’m told is not something is subject to the setbacks,
or may not be subject to the setbacks, but in any event, that will be moved. Okay. It will
be moved up to beneath the lower deck here, right in this area. We’ve written to the
neighbor and asked for permission, so that we have a gang of people that will carry it up
and around and over to that. We’ve been given permission by the neighbor to do that.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
So what the Board has before it is this walkway right here, the stairs and the walkway at
the bottom. On this map, and I think related to Staff’s comments, that in my site data
sheet, he believes there’s an error. I included, in the new site data sheet that you have,
the building footprint, per the survey, the paved gravel and other hard surfacing area, the
asphalt and the concrete walk per the survey, porches and decks 520 feet. I thought I
was being very generous in actually including that. That is a wooden deck. It’s a slotted
deck. In prior applications, we have not considered that, and it’s not covered. We have
not considered that to be non permeable. We have not considered that to be other than
permeable. I put it in, and I probably, when I got all said and done said, fine, it’s in, but I
really think, and I can name three or four different applications, and when I talked to
Craig about that, he said, well, we always have that discussion, is it permeable or not
permeable, but if you look underneath this deck, first of all, the top deck is slotted. It
goes right to the bottom deck. So I don’t think anybody’s going to argue about the upper
deck. If you look underneath that deck, it’s natural soil. The rain runs through that, and it
runs to that soil, the definition of permeable is ground surface through which water can
percolate in a natural manner. Said ground could be undisturbed, natural terrain or a
landscaped area, and I don’t know if that’s other than that, underneath that deck. It’s
natural terrain. It’s got some posts. It’s got some yard stuff that they stick in there, but
still it drains right through that deck and goes to the ground. I did not include, and the
Staff Notes indicate that, I did not include in my calculation the wooden stairs, and I think
if you’ve all been up there you’ll see. The wooden stairs are quite elevated, and they’re
all slotted. They’re all open, and the rain goes through them. Underneath them is
natural ground, except that they put some random rocks in there, which, if anything,
helps the percolation more than deters the percolation. It keeps the rain there. It doesn’t
allow it to start to gather. It doesn’t allow it to start to flow. So I think I’m correct in not
including the wooden stairs. I did make a mistake, and I often make mistakes, and I
don’t necessarily say I don’t. I didn’t include the little shed, which is 96 square feet, and
the reason I didn’t is I got confused in my own mind between our definitions of Floor Area
Ratio and permeable. Floor Area Ratio, you’re allowed, as an exemption, the first 100
square foot shed. So when I looked at the shed and I’m doing this calculation in my
mind, all of a sudden went to that formula, if you will and I excluded it. With the shed
included, we would have 2602 feet of non permeable space. That turns out to be .3547.
So I think you round it off to 35, 36, whichever, probably round it off to 36. We’re
required to have 35. So the variance that, if we’re looking for a variance or a
continuation of a variance for permeable, it’s one percent above the 35, and I’m
comfortable with that calculation. Maybe the Board has a different interpretation than I
do, but what I did include, if you’ve got your own map in front of you, I included the
asphalt. I included the lower deck, which arguably you don’t have to include. I included
the concrete walk and I included the house footprint, and that got us to 2506, and I
added to that the 96 feet for the shed, which gets me to the 2602, and if you divide that
by 7335, is where I come up with the .3547. So I’m very comfortable with that figure. I
think that figure is actually high, and I actually do believe that you don’t need to include
the 520. It is an open wood deck that’s slotted so that the rain runs through it. It’s not
something that becomes compacted. It’s not a permeable surface as we’ve always
treated permeable. It doesn’t fall within the definition of permeable. As I said, the
applicants have listened to the complaints, or the comments, I guess, that were made,
and the deck on the side of the wooden dock is to be removed. So what we’re basically
talking about is the 200 feet wooden walkway and the deck at the very bottom of the
wooden walkway, and the stairs that connect that to the dock. That’s the 200 square
feet. That requires a side line setback, and it requires a shoreline setback. I suppose,
you know, if you take a look at that, I don’t think that has any impact on anyone. Mr.
Didio tells me that in trying to come down from the historically used concrete walkway,
and improve upon the eroded path that was down to the lake, he had people look at
going across and then coming down, so that maybe all the side lines wouldn’t be
required, side line variances wouldn’t be required. It just didn’t, this is a much better
walkway. Maybe even less noticeable from the lake than having something that’s
directly coming down onto the shore. The deck that’s at the foot of it is hardly noticeable,
at least from the lake, because you’ve got the dock in front of it. That dock has been
there, the dock portion that’s along the shore. Mr. Didio did build the pier that goes out
into the lake, or had it re-surfaced it. I don’t know if you built it entirely. We don’t know of
any environmental negative impact. We don’t know of any community impact by this
activity, by building this wooden walkway and this deck at the foot of it and the stairs that
connect it to the dock. We don’t think that there are any reasonable alternatives to that,
except, you know, you may argue with me that the deck at the foot of the stairs doesn’t
need to be that big of a deck. We measured it. It’s like 6.6 feet to the point of the turn,
and it’s about 7.6 feet deep. I don’t know what purpose would be served, though,
making that smaller, maybe putting a handrail on it. There’s a wooden storage box that’s
part of that deck, and certainly they could move that down onto the other dock, if they
had to move it down onto the other dock, or they could buy one of those plastic
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
temporary storage boxes that people use on docks, but from an environmental point of
view, from a community point of view, I really don’t know of any significant impact. I’m
told that you have letters in your file, and Staff seemed to make the comment or
somebody made a comment, that there are no additional letters in the file, and I’m told
that the owner immediately to the north of the property has written, and in fact I think I
saw those in the minutes. They were read the last time in the meeting. He might have
written twice and had an e-mail in between the letters. He is the one that’s going to be
impacted by the landing at the foot of the stairs, and he indicates that he supports this
fully, that he has no objection to it, no problem with it. There’s another party that’s just to
the north of that, who has also indicated that he has no objection to it. Those two people
have residences on their lakeshore properties. The fellow immediately to the south of
the property is here, and he’s here to object, and represented by Counsel. That’s a
vacant parcel of land that serves as waterfront for four cottages, or three cottages and a
house that are used for rental purposes during the summer. It’s a heavily used parcel.
It’s not used as a residence. The parcel immediately to the south of that, the owner has
spoken to our fellow and has indicated that he does not see a problem with it, and he
also has a residence there. So that’s basically what we’re trying to do. If you take a look
at this photo, you will see, this is the dock of Mr. and Mrs. Didio. In the corner, and this, I
think, was taken before the steps and the connection were put on there. There is some
type of concrete platform that was partially covered. You can’t see what was covered by
this deck that’s down at the bottom of the stairs, but there was a small block of concrete,
and I’ll show that to you. That piece right there on the corner. How far that extends in,
we tried to find it and we couldn’t.
MR. ABBATE-Counselor, I have a question. I can’t seem to find, in any of my
documentation, those letters from neighbors supporting Mr. Didio. I may have misplaced
them, but I don’t have them in my files. Mr. Brown, did we receive those letters?
MR. BROWN-I would check with the Secretary. He’s got the official file right there.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-On Page, this also, again I’ll remind you, had No County Impact by the
County Board, Planning Board.
MR. URRICO-Mr. Chairman, it looks like the letter was read into the minutes last time by
Mr. Underwood. It’s on Page 23 of the notes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Strack you said, right?
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Strack was one of the persons.
JOSEPH DIDIO
MR. DIDIO-He wrote two or three times, and then Mr. Cadenas.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Strack is the property that’s immediately to the next door of the
Didos. He said I am a next door neighbor of the Didios and have been very impressed
with the work that they have done to improve the safety and security of their property.
The access to their waterfront has been extremely hazardous, invoking a rather steep
incline, no stairs, railings or other accessible features that we all take for granted. They
solved this problem very nicely with a well constructed stairway with safety rails and a
secure landing at lake’s edge, and that was one of, I think, three letters, and then a
Richard Cadena, also wrote and is recorded on that same letter. We have no problem
whatsoever with this property or any of the improvements, and in fact we are very
grateful to have the Didios as good neighbors and they are definitely an asset to the
community. I wish we had more like them. I would be happy to comment further and
answer any questions you or anyone else might have concerning the Didios or their
property.
MR. ABBATE-I do have that in the minutes of the meeting, Counselor.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-It is there. Definitely.
MR. O'CONNOR-All right. I didn’t go back over, perhaps, the need for this stairway. I
think it was demonstrated fairly clearly at the last meeting that there is a safety issue with
being able to get up and down from the property residence to the waterfront, and without
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
a stairway it would create problems. I did note one comment, and I didn’t understand it
necessarily, but a side effect of what’s been built there is that there is an impediment to
any runoff directly into the lake, and someone commented that maybe runoff directly into
the lake is beneficial. I’ve never seen that some place else before, because everybody, I
go to site plan, they tell me I’ve got to put a 15 foot berm on a nice lawn, with a mound on
it to prevent runoff of any nature, and you can see what they’re doing up at Gaslight
Village to avoid runoff, or what used to be Gaslight Village, whatever you call it now
days. So I would argue with that point as being a valid point. So, I think this is a minimal
request. I apologize. My clients apologize for it being an after the fact request. I can’t
say anything about that, except it is here. I think, in all honesty, if you had it before you
with all the facts and circumstances and you went up and visited the property, and I know
most of you did, you wouldn’t have a problem approving it. You may want to look at that
deck at the foot of the stairs a little closer than what we have asked you to look at it, but
the stairs I think are certainly something that is necessary for a reasonable use of the
property, and the landing at the bottom doesn’t add in any significant way to, in a
negative way, to this thing.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Members of the Board, do we have any questions for
Counselor or the appellant?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Staff. This is for my own edification. I
really want to understand this concept, okay, and this is relative to the Type II SEQRA
classification. There was some comment in the public hearing at the last visit relative to
that issue, and the individual pointed out that, Number One, this is in a Critical
Environmental Area, being right on the lake, and, Number Two, that subject to 617.5
Paragraph C, that this is not an approved building lot. It is a substandard lot, and
therefore it is not a Type II, and so, please, explain it to me so that I understand why the
Staff Notes say Type II.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I know we’ve kind of traded a few e-mails on this topic.
MR. BRYANT-Right, and this is one of those that I questioned.
MR. BROWN-I thought I explained all that pretty well. Is that a discussion we want to go
into?
MR. O'CONNOR-Can I address it?
MR. BROWN-I’ll be happy to answer your question. There’s a General Exceptions
Chapter in our Code that talks to any lots that have been created prior to October 1,
1988, and those lots, which this is one of, are considered legal nonconforming lots of
record, regardless of size, shape, configuration, lot width, depth, it’s a legal existing lot.
So, is it an approved lot? Yes. Is this a Type II SEQRA action? Absolutely. I don’t
know if there was another question, but it’s definitely an allowable.
MR. BRYANT-The second question is about the Critical Environmental Area, and how
does that affect the Types?
MR. BROWN-It doesn’t affect this project at all.
MR. BRYANT-It doesn’t affect this project whatsoever?
MR. BROWN-No. Not in determining the SEQRA Type.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other questions?
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of the record, can I give you a copy of
what was quoted in the last meeting?
MR. ABBATE-Please do, we’ll enter it into the record.
MR. BRYANT-I have that, we have that in our package. We have the minutes from the
last meeting.
MR. O'CONNOR-No, okay, I’m talking about the SEQRA Regulations.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
MR. O'CONNOR-617.5 C, Paragraph Nine, was quoted in part, okay, as being the
reason why this was not a Type II application, and the part that was quoted said that this
was not construction or expansion of a single family, two family or three family residence
on an approved lot including provision of necessary utilities. I think Mr. Brown just
answered that his definition of approved lot says it is, but even beyond that, this is a list
of Type II actions. The next action, which wasn’t quoted to you, which I’ve got a copy for
you, says construction, expansion, or placement of minor accessory appurtenant
residential structures, including garages, carports, patios, decks, swimming pools, tennis
courts, satellite dishes, fences, berms, storage sheds, or other buildings not changing
the use, land use or density. This is certainly a minor accessory structure.
MR. BRYANT-So that’s what makes it Type II.
MR. O'CONNOR-That would make it Type II. Beyond that, another section that wasn’t
quoted to you was Subsection 12, granting of individual setback and lot line variances.
All lot line and setback variances are Type II. So, I mean, you can make all kinds of
smoke and mirrors here, but if somebody’s going to quote Statute to you, and I hate,
you’ve got Counsel, or you had Counsel here. I guess he’s left, but I don’t like quoting
law to you. I like quoting the facts to you, but they should quote to you all the law, and
not just a part of it that serves their purpose. You have to be very careful with people
doing that to you, and I see it often, and I sometimes take exception, but granting of an
Area Variance for a single family, two family, or three family residence, that’s Number 13.
You’ve got three very clear reasons why this is a Type II. You’ve got an interpretation for
a fourth reason. So I apologize. I get excited about that.
MR. BRYANT-That’s fine. That’s why I clarified it. I said it was for my own edification. It
was not.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. We’re going to enter this into the record, please, 617.5.
MR. O'CONNOR-Again, may I should have given you the first part of that. The first part
of that says.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, I know what the first part says.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. All right.
MR. ABBATE-Well, you’ve made us very comfortable this evening, Counselor. We’re
th
having, on the 8 of August, a workshop, just covering some of these areas. Thank you.
If you’d like to attend, let us know. There’s no fee. Do any members of the Board have
any questions for Counselor or the appellant at this time? Okay. Then I’m going to
move on. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 26-2007, and if
we have any members of the public who wish to address this issue, would you be kind
enough to raise your hands, I will recognize you and ask you to come to the table. Yes,
sir, and, Counselor, you will have an opportunity to address any of these issues.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. Gentlemen, please, would you have a seat, speak into
the microphone, tell us who you are and your relationship and what you have to say,
please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
JOHN SVARE
MR. SVARE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, John Svare, with the law firm of Bartlett, Pontiff,
Stuart and Rhodes. I’m here along with Gary Banta. Mr. Chairman, members of the
Board, this property has been in Mr. Banta’s family for over 50 years. What once was a
natural, wonderful, well established natural path down to the lake has been ruined by
erosion, and that erosion has occurred because of the Didios vast improvements. This
started with the pavement of a driveway. It escalated to the lower deck and the upper
deck, and then without any approvals, without seeking any approvals, the Didios then
decided to construct this wooden walkway, along with the deck, a dock addition, and, as I
stated the deck at the end of the stairway. Mr. O’Connor notes that the stairway is
needed for safety reasons. Well, I would respectfully submit that the deck structure at
the end of the stairway certainly was not created for any safety reason whatsoever, and
that should be eliminated. The environmental impact on the lake cannot be overlooked
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
additionally, and to suggest that this structure can’t be viewed from the lake is erroneous.
This is a vast, mammoth, monumental structure. .17 acres, .17 acres. The permeability
issues, the runoff issues has significantly affected Mr. Banta’s property. I have five
letters from Mr. Banta’s tenants observing the problems on Mr. Banta’s lot. Mr. Banta
has observed some of his tenants slipping, falling, on what was once a natural and
beautiful walkway down to the lake. We certainly respect the change in the Jacuzzi, but
that only adds to the runoff issues, and I have photographs that I would submit, and I
have five letters that I can either read into the record or submit to the Board, and I have
Mr. Banta here to my left, and he’d certainly welcome the opportunity to speak here as
well, but those are the objections that we continue to have, and while we recognize that
the Didio’s certainly have addressed some of your needs, we would continue to object to
the deck at the end of the stairway and the Jacuzzi, certainly there’s alternatives to a
Jacuzzi sitting at the bottom of the lower deck portion of the property. So if you’d like to
hear from Mr. Banta, we would welcome that, and I’d like to read into the record the
letters, or submit them, whatever the Chairman would want.
MR. ABBATE-We’re certainly willing to listen to Mr. Banta, and I’d like you to not only
read the letters into the record, but to submit them to us so we can include it as evidence
in our case.
MR. SVARE-Yes, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-In any order you wish.
MR. SVARE-Well, perhaps Mr. Banta can address personally some of the issues that
were brought up at the last meeting, members of the Board wanted to know, personally,
how Mr. Banta has been affected, and, you know, unfortunately I have to backtrack to
the beginning here when this construction was originally started, again, without the
courtesy of seeking any type of permit. The contractor trespassed on Mr. Banta’s
property, causing significant damage, and it’s only escalated since that time. So
unfortunately there’s been a history here, a history that should not be accepted. Mr.
Banta.
GARY BANTA
MR. BANTA-Well, my main concern is the environmental problems that this has caused.
Without our permission, they brought all the materials over our land, and in doing so,
eroded this beautiful, natural path that, there was no erosion. There was no slipping.
The rocks were all established. Now it looks like the side of a quarry. We’ve brought
photographs. I can barely make it down there. I’ve had two broken ankles, two broken
arms. I was in a very bad car accident, and I’m still alive, thank God, but getting down to
my lakefront now is very, very difficult. If you see these pictures and if you visit the site,
you will know the terrible state it’s in, and this was a gorgeous, it was this way my entire
life, my 52 years I lived there on that property every summer with my great-aunt, and
everyone that ever was there knows how this land was, and because of bringing all those
materials down over there, it began this erosion, and then they paved the whole front of
their yard. It doesn’t show that in this map right here. It shows a smaller area paved.
The entire front of their property is paved for parking, and that slopes to my land, and it
goes over the retaining wall into their daylilies and it comes right down that hill, and the
erosion is wider than this table, and it’s as long as from where I am to where this lady is
sitting, and it’s just loose stone, and that was all well established rock. All these loose
stones were under the soil that has eroded down the hill and running into the lake. At the
bottom of our hill, we had a natural path to the docks. That became so eroded that I
couldn’t even walk down there, let alone my guests walk down there. My dad has, last
summer, put some temporary steps there, so that we can get down there until we deal
with this problem and get it solved. There’s no answer until you people decide what we
can do, and you’ll see in the pictures, and the other concern is the safety of my guests,
the safety of my guests trying to get down there, besides myself, and the runoff into the
lake is not good for the water.
MR. SVARE-Do you want me to read the letters?
MR. ABBATE-If you wish.
MR. SVARE-This is a letter from Mary Commanda. “Dear Sir/Madame: I am writing in
reference to the property at Lot # 239-20-1-2 at Dunhams Bay owned by Gary Banta. My
family has enjoyed many memorable occasions at this property. Over the years, all the
landscaping and/or renovations were performed by the Banta’s with the natural beauty,
the environment and effects of the elements of weather taken into consideration.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
Unfortunately, this was not the case with the neighbors the Didio’s. They exhibited no
concern whatsoever for the environment or the elements of weather when they took on
their endeavor to “landscape” their property, nor did they consider property lines. I was
shocked to see the extensive damage caused by their thoughtless project. Not only did
they impinge on Mr. Banta’s property but due to their unskilled, unprofessional labors,
they have also caused great collateral damage to Mr. Banta. The environmental beauty
has been raped. The walking path is now a dangerous trek due to erosion and this being
seasonal rental property causes financial distress. In addition, on a more personal note,
Mr. Banta has extensive health issues which have been heighten due to the stress of this
situation. I sincerely hope the issue can be dealt with promptly and the situation rectified
expeditiously before further complications arise. Respectfully, Mary M. Commanda”
Addressed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. This is a letter from a Mr. LeRoy Norton to
the Zoning Board of Appeals. “Sirs: I would like to state that I know the condition of
Gary Banta’s property at Dunhams Bay (Lot # 209-20-1-23) after the construction at the
Didio property that is next door to Gary’s. The contractors dumped all of the building
material on his lot and dragged it down the pathway to get it to the lake for the building of
the docks, decks, stairs, and etc. This tore up the path on Gary’s lot and caused the
runoff from the Didio’s lot to erode the path to a point where it is not unsafe to walk on. It
washed the lower portion of the path into the lake. Thank you. Sincerely, LeRoy Norton”
This is a letter from Mike and Veronica Givitello to the Zoning Board of Appeals “Sirs:
We are former tenants of Gary Banta’s house at the above address and recently
returned to rent from Mr. Banta again and were really shocked by the state of erosion
that has occurred at the lot that fronts on Lake George (Dunhams Bay) Lot #239-20-1-
23. Previously, there was a wonderful, well established pathway to the lake, with gave a
very nice natural path down to the lake and the dock, and Gary told us that it had been
like that his entire life. Now it is badly eroded and very difficult to walk on safely. WE
have slipped on the loose and dangerous stones. When we saw the changes to the
adjacent (Didio) property, we can see how and why this has occurred. The additional
paving of the front of that lot, which faces the road (Route 9) causes the water to go over
the retaining wall and wash south and across and down Gary Banta’s lot. This condition
was caused when during the major construction of many docks, steps to the docks, hot
tub (on the property line), and another deck from the dock to the property line. the
placement of the Didio’s house and shed make it impossible for them to get the materials
(lumber, timbers, crushed stone, cement & etc.) to the work site below without using
Gary’s property as an access. This lead to the builders using the lot to store lumber,
stone, etc. on Gary’s lot and drag it down the hill and in the course of that action, torn up
the grass, upended the stones, which created a ditch like area, that soon washed away
the old path. Gary told me that he arrived to find the above mentioned items stored on
his property, and to say the least was highly disturbed. He said that he told the builder
that they would have to remove the materials, and return his (Gary’s) property to its
original condition. He said on the next visit to the property, the material had all been
moved down over his property, and that is when he saw the full extent of the damage.
Gary said that at no time did he grant any right to access his property, or was he ever
asked for permission. When Gary and his father (Ed Banta) spoke to Mr. Didio regarding
the damage done, he insisted that they would repair the damage, but as I have related,
the damage continues to progress with every heavy rain storm. We have rented for this
summer season (07), and would certainly like to see things return to the condition that
then they were before the construction.” A letter from Ernie Linendoll and Betty Fowler
to the Zoning Board of Appeals “Sirs: We would like to comment on the condition of
Gary Banta’s lot (#209-20-1-23), at Dunhams Bay, Lake George. I have been able to
use the dock for fishing for the past few years, but now I am unable to, due to the fact
that the path down to the lake is so eroded; that with my physical condition, due a recent
illness, it is not safe for me to do so. In years past, (before the construction at Didio’s
residence adjoining Gary’s property) the path was in great shape and I had no problems
getting down to the dock to fish, now, however, it is strewn with rocks and loose gravel.
This is a result of the contractors who did the work at the Didio’s, using the path to haul
and drag the timbers, etc. down to the lake shore. The paving that was done in front of
Didio’s house directs the water down the path and continues to wash more of the ground
away. I hope that this can be repaired as I miss having a good place to fish. Thank.
Sincerely, Ernest Linendoll Betty Fowler” Lastly, a letter from Margaret Harris to the
Zoning Board of Appeals “Sirs: My friend, Gary Banta owns a lot (3209-20-1-23) at
Dunhams Bay on Lake George that is in poor condition because of erosion that was
created by the unapproved use by his neighbor Mr. Didio. There was a construction of
docks, decks and stairs at the waterfront, and the only way they could get the timbers,
stone, etc. to the lake front was to use Gary’s property. Gary never gave any kind of
permission, and if fact told the contractor that he didn’t want him to trespass in any way
on that above mentioned lot. Because of the paving of the entire front of Mr. Didio’s lot,
rains funnel the runoff onto Gary’s lot and it runs down the place where the path used to
be. It in turn washes down to the lake taking all remnants of the good trail along with it.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
Gary told me that he asked Mr. Didio to repair the damage and to do something to
prevent this continuing problem, but nothing has been done. The condition of the
pathway to the lake prevents me from enjoying what used to be a pleasure full event
sitting on the dock and I look forward to doing it in the future. Sincerely, Margaret E.
Harris Riverview St. South Glens Falls, NY 12803”
MR. ABBATE-All right. Counselor, we’d like you to present that to the Secretary so we
may enter that into the record, please. Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-And we have a question, please.
MR. SVARE-If I can just.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, go ahead. Continue.
MR. SVARE-Besides needing a glass of water, my understanding these are all tenants,
or guests, that have been there that have been personally affected by this, and, you
know, because of the improvements, they can no longer enjoy the property that they
once were able to do. I think there’s a question.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-You bet.
MR. BRYANT-It appears that the majority of the letters refer to the construction process
as creating the erosion, and I think Mr. Banta has expressed that and you, Counselor,
also, and you also mentioned the paving in the front of the property or actually the rear of
the property, parking area that’s causing erosion, so forth and so on. Those issues are
really not related to this application. The only thing that we are addressing is the
walkway and the little deck there. The dock itself you mentioned is not, that’s off the
table because that’s already happened. So I’m going to get back to a question that I
asked you at the last meeting, and that is, can you actually, I lost my train of thought.
Can you actually distinguish whether or not this new structure is affecting the erosion?
Has it exacerbated the erosion? Is it just because of the construction? Is it just because
of the paving in the front, which is not part of this discussion here.
MR. SVARE-Well, the reason why we bring this up is unfortunately we’re dealing with a
pattern, and we’re dealing with .17 acres, and when we first start out with paving, and
then we go to decks, and then stairways, it only increases the permeability issues, and
that’s the reason why we bring this up. The erosion has escalated. No doubt about it,
and I think Gary can talk about that. Recently people are slipping and sliding all over the
place, but the reason why we mention the paving is because there’s no vegetation on
this, hardly any vegetation here. This is hard surface, hard surface within 50 feet of the
lake. Aesthetically, from the lake, you can certainly view this stairway structure, and so,
you know, that’s the reason, by way of background, that we cite those problems. The
erosion absolutely can be attributed to the stairway structure that is very close to Mr.
Banta’s property and the Jacuzzi that was there as well.
MR. URRICO-I have a question also.
MR. ABBATE-Please, Mr. Urrico.
MR. URRICO-I just want to follow up on what you just said. Now, is the erosion due to
paving at the top near the road or is it due to the stairway? Is it both?
MR. SVARE-Right. It’s a combination of factors.
MR. URRICO-The stairway has created the erosion of the entire path from the stairway?
MR. SVARE-The erosion occurs from the parking lot, in addition to the stairway, but the
stairway issue is, it’s inside the 50 feet setback requirement.
MR. URRICO-Well, now you’re presenting another argument.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
MR. SVARE-Well, there’s a host of reasons to reject the walkway. The environmental
issue is only one of the many reasons why this application should be rejected. At the last
meeting, I recall great concern over the Critical Environmental Area that this property is
located in. Specifically I remember Mr. Garrand, you had great concerns, and nothing
has been done to improve that situation. The walkway’s still there. The deck at the end
of the walkway’s still there, and the hot tub, all within the 50 feet setback requirement.
MR. URRICO-The last letter that you read, it said something about the contractor was
asked not to trespass, yet in some earlier letters and some other comments you said that
you weren’t even asked, you weren’t asked at all.
MR. BANTA-I wasn’t asked. I told them to get off the property.
MR. URRICO-Okay. So you did have conversation with the contractor?
MR. BANTA-Yes, I did, and they continued to use it and build more and more decks, and
docks.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. URRICO-Okay. What would it take to fix the problem.
MR. BANTA-I don’t know, several thousand dollars.
MR. URRICO-Okay. Thank you.
MR. BANTA-First of all, on top of the pavement needs to have an edge on it so the water
runs into the roadway edge, because it comes over their, as their pavement, which the
pavement goes from one side of their property to the other side of the property, not how
it shows on this map. The entire front of their property is paved now. It wasn’t when they
moved there. The pavement only was on the side of the house. Now it’s the entire front
of the house. All that water runs over the retaining wall onto my land and begins the
erosion, right up at the top, then forms the big area I was telling you about with all the
stones loose and all that, and as it proceeds down the hill, it has gotten worse, and down
closer to the lake, because of the hot tub being where it is, more erosion occurred to our
natural path and went down there. My dad had to put some temporary steps in there
because we couldn’t walk down there anymore, and we’d walk down there, the family
had walked down there for 150 years. I mean, this was a beautiful natural lot.
MR. SVARE-I guess I’d just have to say that if it was the Didio’s intent to make this many
improvements, without even seeking the courtesy of a permit, I would respectfully say
that they should have purchased property with more acreage. I mean, this is .17 acres
here. It’s a monumental, drastic type of building.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Just one final question, Mr. Chairman. I’m sorry. It seems to me, by
looking at the property, I could understand the runoff probably from the parking area,
okay, and I understand that that’s a concern. As far as the contractor is concerned, it’s
really a civil issue between Mr. Banta and the contractor, and that’s probably how it
should be resolved, but I want to understand the walkway and the stairway, since it’s
slotted, how does that increase the erosion? I’m trying to, help me, here.
MR. BANTA-Because there’s less land exposed. Even though water can run through
slots, it’s not like water running on the ground.
MR. BRYANT-I know, but it doesn’t divert it to your property in any way. It goes through
the slot.
MR. BANTA-And washes his property down into the water.
MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s okay. It’s his property.
MR. BANTA-No, it’s an environmental issue to protect the lake.
MR. BRYANT-I understand that.
MR. SVARE-Well, it’s a Critical Environmental Area, and this property should not just be
viewed exclusively on the stairs. It should be viewed in its entirety. Each and every
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
improvement should be viewed here tonight. We can’t just say, we’re just going to focus
on the stairway. We have the pavement issue. We have the decks. We have a Jacuzzi
and now we have a stairway. It should be viewed in its entirety, okay, and the erosion,
you know, I don’t have a scientific background here to be able to tell you specifically how
that is occurring on the stairway, but it certainly contributes, and as Mr. Banta notes out,
it reduces the amount of vegetation down there. We have runoff into the lake, in a
Critical Environmental Area.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Do we have any other questions?
MR. GARRAND-Mr. Banta, is this concrete walkway still into your property?
MR. BANTA-It’s still on my property, yes, but I don’t object to that.
MR. ABBATE-Any other members of the Board? No other questions? All right. Anyone
else in the public? Have you concluded your comments to us? Okay. Thank you.
Anyone else in the public who’d like to address Area Variance No. 26-2007?
MR. O'CONNOR-Can I ask Mr. Banta one question?
MR. ABBATE-You’ll have to come up to the table, Counselor, so we can get it on the
record.
MR. O’CONNOR-When Mr. Garrand asked how long his knowledge of the sidewalk. Mr.
Banta, can you tell the Board how long, to your knowledge, has that sidewalk been
where it is?
MR. BANTA-The new one they created?
MR. O’CONNOR-No, the sidewalk that encroaches on your property.
MR. BANTA-Probably about 20 years.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Do we have any other members of the public who would like to
address Area Variance No. 26-2007? Be kind enough to raise your hand, I’ll recognize
you and have you come forward. I see no other hands raised, so, Counselor, you have
an opportunity to rebut any information that’s been submitted.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very often tell me clients calm down, don’t
respond, don’t get into non related items, as may be diversions of what is the subject
before the Board, but I think some discussion needs to be had. All of a sudden we’re
talking about the temporary steps and landing on Mr. Banta’s property that he installed
last year. The only reason they’re temporary is because I asked him if he had a permit
for it, and he recognizes the fact that he is subject to the same rules that he’s trying to
impose upon Mr. Didio. He didn’t apply to this Board or to this Town for any building
permit. In fact, he probably needs an additional variance because that’s an accessory
structure without a principal structure on a lot. The hypocrisy of some of what has been
said here is just unreal. The Didio’s have a year round residence on this small parcel.
This parcel next door to it serves four rentals that are heavily used during the summer,
and they’ve made no improvements to that property, at least according to Mr. Didio,
since he’s been there. The problem that they’re talking about, the erosion, I saw the
erosion. They have a path that’s dangerous, the same as our path would be dangerous
if we didn’t have stairs on it, and I probably would say we don’t have an objection if they
wanted to come in and ask for stairs. They probably should get one, but that erosion,
and I’ve done this often enough. I went up and looked at the property. There’s no
erosion coming off the side of this property next to where, if you take a look at the map
and you take a look at where his path is, his path is out in the middle of his lot. Actually it
begins probably on the southerly side of his lot and then winds toward the middle of the
lot as it gets down to the bottom. There’s no erosion next to the hot tub where it’s
presently located. There’s no erosion next to the wooden walkway that you have before
you. I mean, you can see erosion on the ground. You can see whether it’s worn off the
Didio property to get to the Banta property. I think your comment that if they think that
they have a problem with erosion, it is a civil issue, and Mr. and Mrs. Didio aren’t going
any place. We would be willing to sit down. If you take a look at the property lines, and if
you went up and looked, you probably wouldn’t, but I asked where the corners were.
The stake, there’s pins up there. Most of that pavement is in the State highway. It’s not
actually on the Didio property. If the State or the Town would put in some catch basins,
that may solve it, because there’s a good water shed that comes down that area, goes
past the Didio property and goes on to this other property. This property is the only
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
property that doesn’t have as wide an apron as the properties above it. If there is a real
concern by the Board that there is an erosion problem because of what we have before
you, this 200 foot walkway and the stairs at the bottom of it, I’d be glad to bring in an
engineer or the Town now has engineering staff, and you can ask the Town Engineer to
go out and say is what’s before you an erosion issue. That’s, to me real smoke and
mirrors. I don’t think that it creates any erosion for that stairway. As far as
environmentally, from a visual point of view, it’s got what the Planning Board is trying to
get everybody to do. It’s got natural planting. It’s got a couple of rock walls. They were
placed there to break up anything coming down the face of that hill. It’s got a perennial
garden in there. It’s not a grass lawn. That’s what the Planning Board is telling us to do.
When we go to site plan, they’re telling us that they want a natural buffer. So I don’t
know, and the walkway is visible. The walkway fits into the brown background. It’s not
white. It’s not pink. If I remember right, it’s natural color. We’ve got some pictures of it.
You’ve got pictures of it. They were submitted last month I’m told. The question was
whether or not there’s any green on the front of the property. There’s a lot of green on
the front of the property. This deck is the deck that they’re going to take out. That’s the
walkway. That’s the beginning of the walkway, and if you take a look at even this photo,
I don’t know if that’s demonstrated enough, but you can see that there’s no erosion off
the side of this. I don’t know what the third one shows. That’s the inside of it. That’s not
the outside of it. So I don’t know if you want to pass those along. The other question I
have is apparently, and I don’t want to get into, this is not an adversarial, I want to avoid
the neighborhood stuff. We’ve talked to current tenants who have different outlooks.
MR. DIDIO-That have been there since the timeframe we’ve been there in the past four,
five years that would actually have come here tonight if we’d ask them to, and they would
write letters. None of these folks who wrote these letters that seem fairly scripted do I
know or have ever seen or heard of.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Have we concluded your portion, so we can continue on?
MR. O'CONNOR-I think you have, unless there’s questions that were raised that you
want us to answer directly.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any questions for?
MRS. JENKIN-When you remove the hot tub, and that’s this picture here, were you
planning to do anymore plantings and landscaping? I noticed there’s a lot of shrubbery.
Is this natural or have you planted them?
MR. DIDIO-It’s all perennial. Cindy has planted them. They’re all perennial plants now
that are in there on that slope and on the back side of the slope as well. That is just like
gravel and fill in that, on top of those stones.
MRS. JENKIN-So will you more or less try to?
MR. DIDIO-I would just leave that there probably. I mean, unless, you know, if you want
plantings there, we can plant it, but it’s just a level piece of, you know, it’s just dirt.
MRS. JENKIN-And these are just natural areas here. You haven’t planted those?
MR. DIDIO-Yes, there are a couple of plants in there.
MRS. JENKIN-You did plant?
CINDY DIDIO
MRS. DIDIO-We planted those, and all along the hill we planted, because there was no
grass or anything on the hill, but I hired Carrie Mendez, who’s a horticulturist, who came
in and did, planned out the whole thing for me. So I’ve been doing it, but it’s very difficult
because it’s rock and so it’s hard for the plants. I can’t get big plants, but this is my third
year of planting on the hill to try to get a perennial garden going.
MRS. JENKIN-Right. I was just thinking to perhaps appease your neighbor that maybe
you could just make sure that when you do take the hot tub out, that you did more
plantings so there was no possibility of any kind of runoff onto that property, that it would
be absorbed by any plantings.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
MR. DIDIO-Really the backside of that, the portion that faces his property is the way it’s
always been. It was only just the front face that we brought up. That really, there’s
nothing that I could do to that that would stop any kind of run down his hill from there.
MR. O’CONNOR-But I mean, in the actual area of, if you go down the walkway, you step
down a step and then you walk, you’re at the hot tub, and there is a flat area there that
will be there when they remove the hot tub. They can plant that with shrubberies or
some type of cover so that it won’t create erosion.
MRS. JENKIN-All right, and this area here, this is the area that you’re having trouble.
MRS. DIDIO-Well, I’m planting there. If you went and saw it now, you would realize that
there are lot of plants there. There’s a perennial garden there, but it takes a few years
for it to come in, and I keep planting every year, but, you know, I’m trying to get it to look,
you know, I would love it to be all green, but it takes a while.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We also would leave open and you know I don’t want to create
a neighborhood McCoys and the Hatfields here. If the State or the Town wishes to put in
some type of drywall up at the top, and we can get them to do it, and we have to give an
easement, even if it’s in to our lot, we’d be willing to do that. There is a drainage
problem, but the drainage problem, we believe, is from Route 9L. It’s not from this 200
foot wooden stairway, walkway.
MRS. JENKIN-And the other question I had was you said something about there,
underneath this lower deck, right at the bottom, there is concrete?
MR. O’CONNOR-There’s a little bit of concrete, and one of the photos shows it, right
underneath the steps, it sticks out. You can see part of the concrete sticking out on the
bottom of the step there.
MR. DIDIO-It was the existing (lost word) dock.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it was whatever the dock was attached to. It looks like a block.
How far back in, I don’t know.
MRS. JENKIN-How big would that be?
MR. O'CONNOR-Probably four feet by three feet, something like that.
MR. DIDIO-It’s just, when he built the dock I think in the 70’s, it what started the, his
dock, his shoreline dock to the thing. I think that’s how it’s anchored or whatever, but it’s
been there since.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So you don’t have to consider that as part of improving?
MR. O’CONNOR-It’s part of the dock, I think. Well, it also looks like most of it is covered
by this deck that we’re asking for permission to leave there. So there’s no duplication,
and if you’re talking about something, if there were a duplication, you might be talking
maybe 10 square feet or something like that. Not much.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Not a significant.
MR. URRICO-One more question. I just want to make sure I understand this. How long
did you purchase the property?
MR. DIDIO-2002.
MR. URRICO-So I know it’s not on the table, but the concrete walk was there prior to
your purchasing?
MR. DIDIO-It was built, I think, it’s written 1971, in the concrete.
MR. URRICO-And I have a question for Staff.
MR. ABBATE-By all means.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
MR. URRICO-The permeability, does that include the paved driveway at the top of the
property?
MR. BROWN-Yes. I believe they stated the calculation does include that, yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it does.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t know if this is a question for you or for Mr. Banta’s counsel, but the
letters that he submitted, were they from renters or tenants? Because were they local
residents?
MR. O’CONNOR-We didn’t recognize them as anybody who’s been a current tenant.
MR. BRYANT-There were no addresses mentioned. Do you have the letters?
MR. ABBATE-Our Secretary has the letters.
MR. BRYANT-I’ll look at them.
MR. ABBATE-While the Secretary’s searching for the letters, do any Board members
have any other questions? If not, we will proceed. Okay. I’m going to proceed, and I’m
going to ask members of the Board to offer their comments on Area Variance No. 26-
2007, and again I’d inform the public that the comments offered by the members of the
Board are directed to the Chairman and they are not subject to debate. Do I have an
individual who would like to volunteer first to comment on Area Variance No. 26-2007?
Mr. Bryant, please. Thank you for volunteering.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I’m not ready.
MR. ABBATE-You’re not ready. Fair enough. That’s a good answer. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-I think the applicant’s gotten the point we made earlier about submitting
after the fact, but in all fairness, at this point, traditionally this Board has looked at after
the fact applications as if it was being presented for the first time and weighing the test
against it in that respect. I think at this point removal of the deck/stairs would be
draconian. It would be a draconian solution, and I don’t think that’s something I would
like to see. I think the applicant has made some concessions that seem to be very
positive. Obviously the benefit to the applicant. In order to create a safer situation, I
really think this is the only means feasible to the applicant. We’ve talked about the
undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties, and frankly I
don’t see the undesirable change. I think the request is substantial. The closeness to
the lake obviously is something we try to avoid. I don’t think it’s possible in this situation.
We’ve talked about the environmental effects, and again, I think there may be some
problems there, but I’m not sure it’s directly related to this staircase and the deck. I think,
given the fact that the applicant has made some concessions, is willing to take out the
lower deck, move the Jacuzzi. I’d be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Urrico.
MR. URRICO-One more thing. I’d also plant some shrubbery that might buffer the area
as well.
MR. ABBATE-We’ll include that as a condition. Okay. Do we have anyone else who
would like to comment at this time?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll go.
MR. ABBATE-Please, Mrs. Hunt.
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think, while it’s extremely regrettable, what’s happened to Mr.
Banta’s property, the storage of building material, the water runoff, paving of the front
yard, those things really have nothing to do with what we’ve come here to decide tonight,
this construction of a 326 square foot wooden walkway and deck area, and the 96
square foot platform, and I don’t think removing them would make it any better for Mr.
Banta and I don’t think it adds, is detrimental. So I would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Joan, please?
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
MRS. JENKIN-I also feel that problems that the problems that Mr. Banta said are definite
a civil issue and probably needs to be dealt with that way. The variances that we have
been asked to review don’t have any bearing to that. I feel that they have worked hard to
make a safe stairway down. I think that when I visited I thought that they have made it
very appealing. It helps the neighborhood. It definitely helps the neighborhood, and
from the letters, I think that that has, the neighbors feel also that they’ve improved the
property. I think, so there is a desirable change in the neighborhood from what you had
before and the danger. I don’t think there will be an adverse physical or environmental
effect to these two variances, but I would like to see more shrubbery and keep maybe
even try different ones that are easier to grow on rock. I know it’s difficult. So I think it’s
probably self-created because you’ve tried to create a safe environment for yourselves.
So I would be in favor of this.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Bryant please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, this is a lot of relief, okay, and I guess it’s
because of the nature of the location of the property, proximity, right on the lake.
Anything you build is going to require that much setback, but I’m reviewing all the
discussion we’ve had tonight, and relative to the possibility that the structure may
exacerbate the erosion problem, I don’t see, I’m not an engineer, but I don’t see that
that’s even a possibility. Because the stairs are not solid. They’re, you know, if erosion
exists, it would exist without the stairs being present. I think the relief is substantial, but I
also believe that in this case the only real alternative is to remove the structure and
removing the structure is not going to change the erosion issue. Removing the structure
is going to take away from the aesthetics of the property so that really is not a feasible
alternative. That being said, I’m very specific when it comes to structures that are that
close to the lake, but unfortunately, I really don’t think there’s any alternative. I do
recommend that you open the line of discussion with your neighbor and see if there’s
anything that you can do to alleviate the stress there, whether it’s in relationship to what
the contractor did or you’re paving in the front or the stormwater or whatever, and this
way we can put that behind us, but that being said, I’m reluctantly in favor of this.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Garrand, please.
MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I think of the cumulative effect of all
the improvements that have been made on the property, I look at the balancing test, and
obviously it would fail the balancing test looking at the cumulative effect, but tonight
we’re not looking at that. We’re looking at 37.46 feet of relief here, 4% of relief from
permeability, and 8.06 feet relief from the shoreline setback. While I think that they may
have contributed to some of the problems down there, I think their lack of a stormwater
management plan may have had some effect on it, but I can’t unequivocally say that
what they’ve done has caused the problems down here. I didn’t see the construction
debris’ down there that may have exacerbated this problem. I also agree with the fellow
Board members that a lot of this, should it not be able to be resolved between Mr. Banta
and the Didio’s individually, should probably be in civil litigation. Reluctantly, I’d have to
be in favor of this application, though.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I can almost say ditto. As has been said, what we’re dealing
with tonight is basically now the stairway with the items that the applicant has agreed to
remove, and I think actually we’re dealing, if I remember right, from what Counsel said,
with 36% permeability, versus the 35 that’s required for impermeability.
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s my understanding.
MR. MC NULTY-So it’s only a percent increase, or one point increase on that, and, you
know, I, too, am disturbed that it’s an after the fact approval, but then the real question is,
are we better off with a structure that’s been constructed being there or not being there,
in terms of benefit to the community, in terms of benefit to the applicant, and obviously
there’s some benefits to the applicant. There may be some benefits, or at least a 50/50
tradeoff, I think, for environmental purposes. Because if that weren’t there, and people
were trying to get down to the lake, there would be fair amount of foot erosion eventually
walking over the soil on these steep slopes. This is always a problem with the steep lake
front properties. So a carefully constructed walkway, stairs or whatever sometimes can
benefit the environment by reducing the foot erosion that would otherwise occur, and I
think that may be the case here. The applicants may need to keep a little close eye on
how the drip edge works and whether they need to do something to catch minor erosion,
but, having said all that, I think as far as what’s being requested, the stairway, the
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
setback for the stairway, I don’t have a problem with that. If it were a deck to sun one’s
self or something I would have a problem with it, but I think there’s a practical purpose to
this that outweighs any negative benefit, and I, too, would add my voice to urging that
maybe the two property owners take a look at what the erosion problem is there. I
suspect, as Counsel has suggested, that a lot of the problem starts at least with the
water that’s coming down 9L, which may, then, run into the parking area of the Didio’s,
and then on to the next property, but perhaps with some cooperation you can lean on the
Town or DOT or somebody to do something with that without getting into an expense of
civil litigation. So, sum total, I’m going to be I favor.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Well, I think the Board members, at this
point it’s unanimous, have made it quite clear that they do believe that the appellant has
made some very positive changes, and I think Mr. Urrico made it quite clear, to suggest
that the stairway be torn down there really would amount to a draconian kind of a
solution which I don’t believe is really appropriate either. Of course I’m always bothered
by after the fact, you should have gotten a permit and what have you, but that’s what
happened, and we have to take into consideration what we’re addressing this evening,
and based upon the comments of six of my Board members, I concur with what they say,
and based upon their statements, I would also support the application. Now, having said
that, I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 26-2007.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And again I’m going to respectfully remind the members, we have the task
of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, and I’ve already
stated to you the five factors we take into consideration, and again remember, unlike a
Use Variance test, the Board need not find in favor of the applicant on every one of the
five factors. Now I’m going to request a volunteer to please introduce a motion. Do I
have a volunteer to introduce a motion for Area Variance No. 26-2007?
MRS. JENKIN-I would volunteer.
MR. ABBATE-Would you please, Mrs. Jenkin. Thank you.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2007 JOSEPH & CYNTHIA DIDIO,
Introduced by Joan Jenkin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
2966 State Route 9L. The applicant has constructed a total 326 square foot of wooden
walkway and deck area and a 96 square foot dock platform addition. The relief required,
the application requires shoreline setback relief of 37.46 feet from the minimum 50 foot
for the deck and walkway per 179-4-030 for the Waterfront Residential-1A zone.
Additionally, the application requires relief to maintain a 36% impermeable percentage
versus the 35 maximum allowable. The 385 square foot total for the existing shed, 96
square feet, constructed deck and walkway, which is 289 square feet, were not included
in the Site Development Data table submitted by the applicant, Page Two of the
application. Further, the constructed deck requires 8.06 feet of relief from the minimum
12 foot north side line setback requirement, and the south setback relief is 7.5 feet from
the top of the stairs to the side line. Benefit to the applicant. The applicants would be
permitted to maintain the improvements made to their property. Feasible alternatives,
there doesn’t appear to be any feasible alternatives because relocation of the structure
would probably add to the problem of erosion. Is the relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance? It is substantial, but because of the size of the property, there don’t seem to
be any other alternatives. Effects on the neighborhood or community, from the letters
that have been presented, there is a positive effect to the neighborhood or community.
The difficulty is probably self-created, but it is created in an effort to reduce the erosion
by foot traffic, and also to provide a safe means to the lake. One of the conditions for
the approval of this motion would be to continue to plant as much shrubbery as you can
to prevent erosion, especially on the south side where you have the problem. So, saying
that, I move to approve Area Variance No. 26-2007. Also, as a stipulation, that the
applicant would move the Jacuzzi from the south side of the walkway up to the lower
deck by the main structure, and that the applicant would remove the deck that was
mentioned that has been built as an addition to the wood dock.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2007, by the following vote:
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We also stipulated, just so the record is clear. We also
stipulated that we would move the Jacuzzi from the south side of the walkway up to the
lower deck by the main structure, and that we would remove the deck that you’ve
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
mentioned that has been built as an addition to the wood dock, and we understand that
and accept those as conditions.
MR. ABBATE-Right, and those are conditions to the approval, accepted.
MR. URRICO-The Jacuzzi would be moved to a compliant location.
MR. DIDIO-I think it was shown.
MR. O'CONNOR-We showed it on the plan. It’s compliant as far as we know. It’s in the
middle of the lot.
MR. BRYANT-I just want to make sure, on the permeability issue, the allowable,
maximum allowable impermeable surface is 35% and you’re going to be 36%?
MR. O'CONNOR-By my calculation, discounting the slotted walkway and deck.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Just as long as we have that correct.
MR. ABBATE-And it was 35.49 and you rounded it off to 36?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 26-2007 is seven yes, zero no, and it’s
based on certain conditions, and you have no questions as to the conditions, Counselor.
MR. O'CONNOR-We do not.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much.
MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Board.
MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II JOHN KOSKINAS OWNER(S):
HOME WORK DESIGN, LLC ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: 19 CHESTNUT RIDGE
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,224 SQ. FT. 1 ½ STORY
BARN TO SERVE AS A HOBBY BUILDING AND APPLE ORCHARD SUPPORT
STRUCTURE FOR STORAGE OF TRACTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE (900 SQ. FT.). CROSS REF.: BP 2007-285 BARN WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 3.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.7-1-4.2 SECTION: 179-
4-030
JOHN KOSKINAS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 44-2007, John Koskinas, Meeting Date: July 18,
2007 “Project Location: 19 Chestnut Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of a 1224 sq. ft. 1 ½ story barn.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from the maximum allowable sf of 900 sf for garages.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure at the preferred size.
2. Feasible alternatives:
It appears as though a smaller, compliant structure is feasible.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
324 sf of relief from the 900 sf maximum requirement may be interpreted as moderate
(36%) relative to the ordinance.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
No letters of support were submitted with the application.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Administrative Two Lot Subdivision to divide this residence from the lands to the east on
the same shared driveway.
Staff comments:
It appears as though a smaller structure might satisfy the needs as
explained by the applicant; “tractor storage and snow removal equipment.” Given the
title on the survey map as well as the deed, will this building be used for any business
purposes? (Home Work Design, LLC)
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. ABBATE-I believe the petitioner is at the table. Would you be kind enough, sir, to
tell us who you are and your relationship to the appeal.
MR. KOSKINAS-Yes. My name’s John Koskinas, and I’m the petitioner.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, do you understand our procedures this evening?
MR. KOSKINAS-I do.
MR. ABBATE-You do. Are you ready to proceed?
MR. KOSKINAS-I am.
MR. ABBATE-Please do.
MR. KOSKINAS-First I’d comment that the amount of information that the Town of
Queensbury makes available for petitioners on your website is fantastic. Now, Mr.
Chairman and Board members, I’m addressing our request for an Area Variance,
reference AV 44-2007, to construct a one and one half story post beam barn.
Specifically I’m asking that we be allowed to construct a building that is six feet longer
and four feet wider than would otherwise be allowed by current zoning. The project is
intended for a 3.29 acre parcel that borders two other properties that I own. I speak to
you as a petitioner with a vision for the parcel at 19 Chestnut Ridge, and as an adjoining
neighbor and resident who is concerned about the value of real estate and the character
of the area we call the Ridges. I’m aware of the five factors that Statutes require this
Board to consider. I’ll try to address each of them. One, granting this variance will not
produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to
nearby properties. In fact, quite the opposite. While the Town considers the project a
garage, and so is subject to the 900 square foot limitation for garages, we’ve gone to
some length to source a building that will embody the stated objective in the Town of
Queensbury’s Draft Comprehensive Plan Shaping Success dated June 2006, to
“preserve the rural character of our community”. The two and three car stick built
garages springing up all around us seem a distance good in comparison to a post and
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
beam structure. I believe the photos in our application make the difference clear. Two,
the benefit we seek, a functional structure for storage, hobbies and orchard support that
adds value to the parcel at 19 Chestnut Ridge, as well as surrounding residences, and
conforms with the objective voiced for our area of the Town will not be realized with a
smaller structure, even if it is disguised as a “barn”. To work, a barn needs to have a
certain scale to really belong to the landscape. This is a parcel that is more than three
times the minimum requirement and can easily accept a structure the size proposed. I
reference the Queensbury Land Conservancy survey a parallel effort to the Open Space
Plan adopted by the Town Board July 2003, indicating that the Number One priority of
Queensbury residents was “preservation of the region’s rural character”, and the
Queensbury Open Space public planning workshop, May 2002, that listed Chestnut
Ridge first among the most scenic roads in the tour of Queensbury. I feel privileged to
live where we do, and an obligation to add to the image that is the Ridges by how we
maintain our properties and what we build on them. Three, the requested variance is not
substantial. Calculated as a 36% overage in a strict square footage evaluation, the
impact is far less to the eye and to the surrounding area. With the lot at three plus acres
and the zoning at one acre, the impact of an approval, relative to building density and
area congestion, is more like a plus 12%. Four, the proposed variance has no adverse
effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The
structure is well within all setback requirements. Five, is the difficulty necessitating this
request self-created? To some extent I’d have to say yes. I can build a lower cost
building, a smaller building, or a building without the lean to integration, but that isn’t the
best I can do for this property. It’s not the best I can do for my neighbors, and it’s not the
best I can do for this community. Today, a 900 square foot garage isn’t really very big,
as this Board already knows. I have toured a number of approved over sized structures
on much smaller lots. Other options for what the Town calls garages exist. I want to
build a garage that’s just six feet longer, four feet wider than the 900 square foot garage.
I hope you’ll let me.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do you have
any questions for Area Variance No. 44-2007?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got one. This small house, cabin, whatever you want to call it.
MR. KOSKINAS-I like to call it a cottage.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Do you know what the square footage of that is?
MR. KOSKINAS-That’s about 750.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. So you’re proposing an accessory structure that is considerably
larger than the primary structure on the property, then?
MR. KOSKINAS-That’s a way to look at it.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thank you.
MR. GARRAND-Mr. Koskinas, will you be doing any business from in this barn?
MR. KOSKINAS-No.
MR. GARRAND-Relative to Home Work Design at all?
MR. KOSKINAS-Homework is a Limited Liability Corporation I set up. We bought the
properties, two properties, actually, 19 Chestnut Ridge and 21 Chestnut Ridge. They’re
side by side. The red house and the red cottage, if you’ve been on that road, are
adjacent properties but separate deeds and separate closings. The cottage we’ve
rehabbed and it’s rented, and that’s exactly what I intend for the house as well, until I’m
too old to climb stairs, and then maybe I’ll move in it.
MR. GARRAND-Thank you.
MR. KOSKINAS-You’re welcome.
MRS. JENKIN-This building that you’re going to, it’s really a lovely building.
MR. KOSKINAS-Thanks.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
MRS. JENKIN-Are the plans something that you order and that’s the way it is, that’s the
size it is and, or is it your own design?
MR. KOSKINAS-Well, I shopped pretty carefully for this building. This is coming from a
company in Hebron, Connecticut called Country Cottages, and they have an array of
buildings, and post and beam buildings come in sections. So you can amass them in a
lot of configurations, L’s and, but this is a barn with a lean-to, and the way you see it is
the way we’re going to build it.
MRS. JENKIN-So it is a custom made barn?
MR. KOSKINAS-Yes. Tomorrow, actually tomorrow I have to send a check for the final
cutting. That building, the beams will be cut and shipped in August, and a crew comes to
assist for a day.
MRS. JENKIN-So it’s a barn raising. Would it be possible to cut the dimensions a little
bit to make it more?
MR. KOSKINAS-If I wanted a smaller building, sure. I don’t want a smaller building. If I
was going to have a smaller building, you know, to make the barn a smaller barn, it stops
looking like a barn. It looks more like a shed, and I thought this structure, I added the
lean-to, touring around the area. You saw a few other barns in the area, if you go down
Green Barn Road and Tripoli Road, and even on Chestnut Ridge, and the lean-to
structure really makes it look like an old-time building. I can build just a 900 square foot
garage and be in the three car thing, but it isn’t going to look very nice on Chestnut
Ridge, I don’t think.
MRS. JENKIN-So it’s the lean-to that’s making the extra square footage, but it’s wider
than that, too, isn’t it?
MR. KOSKINAS-Well, if you take the lean-to off, it easily makes the square footage
requirement.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions? All right. If there’s no other questions, then
I’m going to move on. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 44-
2007. Do we have any members of the public who would like to address Area Variance
No. 44-2007? Raise your hand. Yes, sir. Would you be kind enough to come to the
table, sir, please. Have a chair, speak into the microphone and tell us who you are.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
ROGER RUEL
MR. RUEL-Good evening.
MR. ABBATE-Good evening.
MR. RUEL-Roger Ruel. My wife Eileen. We are adjacent neighbors. We’re diagonally
across from the applicant, and we’ve reviewed the applicant’s plans. We’d like very
much what we see. If I understand correctly, I believe that this land could be developed
into something else, which we’d rather not see. I’m totally in favor of the barn that the
applicant has submitted. It’s reminiscent, to me, of barns of the past, which we’re losing
way too many of them. So I’m most very definitely in favor of the applicant’s submittal.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, sir, thank you very much.
MR. RUEL-You’re welcome.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have anyone else? Yes, sir, would you come to the table, please.
Have a chair, speak into the microphone, and tell us who you are.
GARY HIGLEY
MR. HIGLEY-Good evening. My name’s Gary Higley. I’m at 31 Chestnut Ridge Road. I
have also written a letter. John is a tremendous neighbor, and this barn is absolutely
gorgeous that he wants to put up. It will be an asset to the neighborhood. I border his
property by 50%, and I’m very much in favor of it. I would not like to see it downsized
because, like John said, it will not look like a barn. So, I am very much in favor of the
square footage and the acceptance of the variance.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir.
MR. HIGLEY-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have anyone else in the audience who’d like to address 44-2007? I
see no other hands raised, so I’m going to move on.
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, we have three letters.
MR. ABBATE-Would you, please, Mr. Secretary. Thank you.
MR. MC NULTY-First looks like it was an e-mail that was sent. It says, “My name is
Michael Crotty, I live at 79 Chestnut Ridge Rd., Queensbury. I received a variance
meeting notice Ref. AV 44-2007 Koskinas in the mail. The purpose of this notice is to
advise my support for the Barn Project that Mr. Koskinas is intending on his property. I
have personally known John Koskinas for about 40 years and I am very confident in
saying that the work that John will do and the results of that work will be a true positive
for the Chestnut Ridge Rd. community. If there is anything I can do in addition to this
note to support the approval of this variance request please let me know. Kind regards,
Mike Crotty” And then there’s the note that Mr. Higley had mentioned that he’d sent
along with Susan Higley, and they say “We’re writing to show our acceptance to this
variance. 50% of my property is bordered by Mr. Koskinas’ property. I strongly urge the
Board to vote YES for this appeal. He is a caring neighbor who has planted a beautiful
apple orchard on this 3-acre lot. The barn he is asking permission to build is necessary
to house all the equipment he will need to maintain this well kept piece of property.
John’s maintenance is impeccable and caring of all neighbors. As for the barn, Susan
and I both feel it is a traditional structure that will fit on the landscape. This structure is
reminiscent of the barns that once used to dot the Ridge Road, Chestnut Ridge area. In
keeping with the vision that the Town has for this sector, this barn meets all the criteria. I
have asked other neighbors to also sign this letter showing their acceptance to this
structure. Once again, I urge the Board to issue this variance to Mr. Koskinas.
Sincerely, Gary Higley Susan Higley” And indeed there’s it looks like four other
signatures on this letter, and finally we have a note from Laura M. Avent. She says,
“Regarding a request from John Koskinas for a variance to build a 1.5 story barn on his
property at 19 Chestnut Ridge Rd., as an adjacent property owner, I am in complete
agreement to having this building constructed. It is in keeping with the area as there are
two other barns nearby on Ridge Rd. It will blend in beautifully; there are tall, mature
pine trees near the building site which will prevent the structure from standing above its
surroundings. I hope that you will agree that this post and beam barn will enhance our
neighborhood. Very truly yours, Laura M. Avent”
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Okay. Fine. I’m going to ask
members of the Board to offer their comments, and the comments are going to be made
to the Chairman, and consequently they are not open to debate. Do I have a volunteer
who would like to address Area Variance No. 44-2007?
MR. BRYANT-I will.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-First off I want to congratulate the applicant on his excellent presentation,
and you answered all my questions before I got the opportunity to ask them. So thank
you for that. I’m generally not in the oversized garage fan club, but I’ve got to say, your
rationale for that type of structure, the support of your neighbors, the actual design that
you’ve included with your package, the photographs that you’ve included, have
convinced me that probably that’s the best way to go. As far as an effect on the
neighborhood, I agree with one of the neighbors when they say that it’ll actually enhance
and continue the vision that Queensbury has for that neighborhood and I’d be totally in
favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Rick, would you like to go, please. Thank you.
MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The last application we saw for this
neighborhood was an application for a subdivision of a lot. This doesn’t exactly fit in with
the open space we like to see in this type of area. Subdivision of lots in this area just
don’t fit in with the character, but this is over three acres, and putting a barn of this nature
on three acres totally fits in with the character of that neighborhood. So I’d be in favor of
this application.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-This one’s easy. It’s interesting that this area is one of the first areas
developed in the Town of Queensbury. It was actually its own community at one point,
and it thrived. So it’s nice to see a project that not only maintains the character of the
rural area but also sustains it and strengthens it, which is what I see here, and the
balancing test says you should measure the benefit to the applicant with the detriment to
the health, safety and welfare of the community, but when it’s a benefit to the applicant
and a benefit to the community, I think it’s a win/win for everybody. So I’d be in favor of
it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Yes. Thank you. I have to agree with my fellow Board members, and I
would also like to add, I think the fact that this barn or garage will be 145 feet from the
road, it won’t even seem like as large as it is. So I’d be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I can’t be as enthusiastic as my fellow Board members, but I think
I’m still coming down on the positive side. I’m a bit torn on this, you know, one, it’s what
the rules are, and unfortunately, when you look at Chestnut Ridge Road, it’s supposed to
be kind of suburban. I did look at the pictures that the applicant submitted of the other
large structures on the property, and I noted that I think three out of the five or six were
old structures, which pre-existed the zoning and what not there. So, just because there’s
old barns there doesn’t necessarily justify building yet another barn. On the other hand,
if we have any rural character left in the Town, it probably is on Chestnut Ridge Road,
and probably is one of the areas where we’ve got the best chance of preserving that kind
of thing, so this kind of barn would certainly fit that. It bothers me a little bit the size
relative to the primary residence that’s on that property right now, and in any other
circumstance, that would give me a problem, and there is the lingering question, given
the title that’s on the land of, well, is this really going to become a woodworking business
at some point instead of a hobby barn, but I think we have to leave that to enforcement
action if that ever should happen. So, having said all that, I, also would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, and finally, Mrs. Jenkin, please.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I would actually agree with the comments made by Mr. Urrico and
Mr. Bryant. I, myself, am a strong proponent of the recommendations that the new
Comprehensive Town Plan has made, and I pushing for many of them, especially the
environmental and the natural aspect of our area. So I would be in favor of this as well.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, and, sir, based upon, quite frankly, your very
impressive presentation, it was well prepared, by the way, and based upon the
comments made by my fellow Board members, I, too, would support the application as
well. Having said that, I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 44-
2007.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask members for a volunteer to address Area Variance
No. 44-2007 with a motion. Do we have an individual who’d like to volunteer for a motion
for Area Variance No. 44-2007?
MR. BRYANT-I’ll do it.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Bryant, would you please.
MR. BRYANT-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2007 JOHN KOSKINAS, Introduced
by Allan Bryant who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
19 Chestnut Ridge Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 1224 square foot,
one and a half story barn. The relief required, the applicant requests relief from the
maximum allowable square feet of 900 square feet for garages. The criteria for
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
considering an Area Variance. Benefit to the applicant. The applicant would be
permitted to construct the desired structure at his preferred size. Feasible alternatives,
there is a feasible alternative to build a smaller compliant structure. However, the
applicant would not be able to build a smaller and compliant structure and still maintain
his design criteria. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 324 square feet of
relief from the 900 square foot maximum requirement could be interpreted as moderate.
Effects on the community. The desired structure would actually improve or at the very
least maintain the character and the nature of the neighborhood. So the effect would be
positive. Is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty is self-created, and with that, Mr.
Chairman, I move the approval of this application.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Jenkin,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 44-2007 is seven yes, zero no. Area
Variance No. 44-2007 is approved. Thank you very much.
MR. KOSKINAS-Thanks very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II CHRISTINE T. LECCE AGENT(S):
LOUIE LECCE, ESQ. OWNER(S): CHRISTINE T. LECCE ZONING: WR-1A
LOCATION: 208 LAKE PARKWAY, ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES
REPAIR AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING DOCK AND BOATHOUSE WITH
SUNDECK DUE TO ICE-DAMAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR BOATHOUSES AND DOCKS. CROSS REF.: SPR
38-07; BP 2006-005 DEMO SFD/BP 2006-251 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING:
JULY 11, 2007 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES; 0.61
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-68 & 86 SECTION: 179-5-050
LOU LECCE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MC NULTY-“The applicant purchased the premises known as 208 Lake Parkway
located in the Town of Queensbury on November 21, 2005. At the time of the purchase
the premises were improved with a single family residence, wood deck and covered
dock. The covered dock was constructed over 40 years ago. According to the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Code the covered dock was and is a legal non-conforming use It
was given this status because the covered dock predated the implementation of the
zoning code and as constructed it violated the current zoning law in three areas: 1)
Property Line Setback It was located 6’ from the adjacent property line. Current zoning
requires a 20’ adjacent property line setback. 2) Height Restriction The peak of the
covered dock was 16’ above the high-water mark to the highest point of the structure.
Current zoning allows only 14’ feet. 3) Maximum Surface Area The surface area of the
dock was 790’ square feet. Current zoning allows 700’ square feet. At the end of April
2006 a surge of ice traveled across Lake George and struck the covered dock destroying
the dock cover and half the dock itself. Pursuant to Section 179-13-050 of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Code the applicant is allowed to reconstruct the covered dock
according to its original dimension and intensity within 18 months of destruction of the
covered dock if the destruction is wholly or in part by fire, wind, hurricane, tornado or
other act beyond the control of man (i.e. ice flows). The applicant is seeking to repair
and rebuild the covered dock in its present location but wishes to make the following
modifications: 1) Instead of reconstructing the original peaked asphalt roof over the
dock applicant wishes to construct a flat sundeck as the dock cover. The existing dock
cover peak was 16’ feet from the high-water mark which violated the zoning code. the
sun deck would not exceed 14’ feet above the high-water mark which satisfies the zoning
code. In addition the surface area of the existing peaked roof was 1,222 square feet.
the surface area of the flat sundeck is 1,218 square feet. 2) The existing dock was 40’
feet long x 26’ feet wide comprising of two 8’ foot wide fingers which equals 790’ square
feet of dock surface which violates the zoning code. Applicant wishes to reconstruct a
40’ foot long x 38’ foot wide dock with two 6’ foot wide fingers which equals 700’ square
feet of dock which satisfies the zoning code. As a result of these modifications applicant
is seeking a twelve foot (12’) minimum setback Area Variance from the adjacent property
line from Section 179-5-050 (6) of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code which requires
a twenty feet (20’) setback.”
STAFF INPUT
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 46-2007, Christine T. Lecce, Meeting Date: July 18,
2007 “Project Location: 208 Lake Parkway, Assembly Point Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 700 sf dock with a 912 sf sundeck.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 12 feet of relief from the minimum 20 foot side yard setback
requirement for a dock. The proposed sundeck would be located at a 14 foot setback.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure at the preferred size.
2. Feasible alternatives:
With the removal of the existing dock and the availability of shoreline, there appears to
be a compliant location available.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
12 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as moderate to
substantial (60%).
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
No letters of support were submitted with the application.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2006-521 4696 sf Single Family Dwelling issued: 9/7/06
BP 2006-005 Demolition of camp issued:1/10/06
SP 38-2007 SPR for construction of 912 sf Boathouse Pending
Staff comments:
It appears as though a compliant location is available for construction of this structure.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
July 11, 2007 Project Name: Lecce, Christine T. Owner: Christine T. Lecce County
Project#: Jul07-33 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes repair and reconstruction of existing dock and
boathouse due to ice damage. Relief requested from side yard setback requirements for
boathouses and docks. Site Location: 208 Lake Parkway, Assembly Point Tax Map
Number(s): 226.19-1-68 226.19-1-86 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant
proposes to remove a damaged 790 sq. ft. dock area with a peaked roof to construct a
700 sq. ft. dock area with a sundeck. The structure is to be located 8 ft. from the side
property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The information submitted indicates the
applicant proposes repair and reconstruction of existing dock and boathouse with
sundeck due to ice damage. The applicant has indicated that adjacent neighbors have
sundecks and the proposed sundeck is lower than the peaked roof. Staff does not
identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff
recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No Action
Default Approval. Due to lack of a quorum of the Board, No Action was taken.” Signed
by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 7/12/07.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Would the petitioner please come to the
table. Good evening, sir. Have a chair, speak into the microphone, and be kind enough
to tell us who you are, please.
MR. LECCE-Good evening. My name is Lou Lecce of the Lecce Law Firm in Latham,
New York. I represent the applicant, Christine Lecce. Also the husband of Christine
Lecce.
MR. ABBATE-Now do you know our procedures this evening?
MR. LECCE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Are you prepared?
MR. LECCE-Yes, I am.
MR. ABBATE-Please proceed.
MR. LECCE-I think the narrative is in the record, and I’d just like to make it clear that the
dock that was destroyed per ice damage, again, we’re just trying to rebuild this to where
it was in its prior location, prior to construction. We’re just trying to, instead of installing a
peaked roof, we’re just trying to get a flat roof to make a sundeck. One thing the
narrative was missing was whether this was self-created. The ice, that wasn’t self-
created. The location, keeping it where it is, yes, it’s self-created.
MR. ABBATE-Was this completely destroyed, the dock?
MR. LECCE-The entire top of the boathouse was gone, was taken off by the ice. Half of
the dock is gone.
MR. ABBATE-And you want to tear the whole thing down?
MR. LECCE-No. We want to use the existing cribs that are there.
MR. ABBATE-The existing cribs.
MR. LECCE-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Mr. Zoning Administrator, so this would not be considered new
construction?
MR. BROWN-I think that it would, sure. The kind of question I had is, if you look at the
plan, I guess if you’d call it the demolition plan, which is this one.
MR. ABBATE-We have it.
MR. BROWN-The pier to the north, it talks about to be removed, and I guess I just have
a question. If you’ve got ballpark numbers, I don’t know the dimensions of the dock. If
you’ve got an eight foot pier, and you’re going to, it looks like, reduce it to a six foot pier, I
just don’t know, construction wise, how you’d do that without taking the whole crib out.
You don’t really cut up a rock pier and narrow it down. So it’s going to be rebuilt as a six
foot pier?
MR. LECCE-Yes. That’s correct.
MR. BROWN-Okay. So you’re not going to be using the cribs that are there. You’re
going to be using the rocks.
MR. LECCE-The rocks that are there, correct.
MR. BROWN-But they’re going to be, it’s new construction.
MR. LECCE-I haven’t had that priced out or estimated yet. So I don’t know how they’re
going to do it. The intent is to try to use the existing piers that are there.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. LECCE-Whether they can use them or not, I don’t know. I haven’t gotten that far.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
MR. BROWN-So to answer your question, I’d consider it new construction.
MR. ABBATE-It is new construction?
MR. BROWN-Absolutely.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Do you have anything else?
MR. LECCE-No.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Board members, we have an answer from our Zoning
Administrator, an answer to my question. This is new construction. Based upon that,
Board members, do you have any questions?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Go ahead, please.
MR. BRYANT-I’m looking at your sketch of the elevation of the boathouse, that’s this
thing here. It’s got the nice little fishies floating underneath. This is going to be the new
deck and boathouse.
MR. LECCE-Correct.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Now it says that both of the cribs are existing. Actually only one of
them is existing, right?
MR. LECCE-That’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. The other question I have, and this is a critical question, and that is
relative to the height. Now you indicate, and you make great effort in your application, to
say that the new boathouse is not going to be over 14 feet, the deck, and so forth and so
on, maximum height, okay.
MR. LECCE-Correct.
MR. BRYANT-You go to great lengths to do that, but yet your sketch, I just want to make
sure that we understand that the height is to the top of the structure, which includes the
railing. So it’s to the very top of the railing.
MR. LECCE-I understand that.
MR. BRYANT-To the mean high water mark.
MR. LECCE-I understand that. That’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So we’re not going to the stepping part of the deck. We’re going to
the very top of the railing.
MR. LECCE-That’s correct. I understand that the Statutes read that it goes to the top of
the railing not to the top of the deck.
MR. BRYANT-That’s right, to the top of the structure, the very top of the structure.
MR. LECCE-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you for clearing that up, Mr. Bryant, and thank you for your
answer, sir. Board members, ladies and gentlemen, do we have any other questions
you’d like to ask the appellant?
MRS. JENKIN-This drawing here, you say that, it looks like the southern part of the dock,
the crib part, is going to be removed.
MR. LECCE-That’s correct.
MRS. JENKIN-And then it will be moved farther south?
MR. LECCE-That’s correct, it’ll be extended further south.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
MRS. JENKIN-And then you’ll build a new crib and put the new covered dock, or that
would be the other end of the dock?
MR. LECCE-Correct.
MRS. JENKIN-Keeping the original, northern crib right there. You’re not going to move
that one?
MR. LECCE-The intent is to make it narrower.
MRS. JENKIN-Right.
MR. LECCE-So we’re currently at six feet off the property line. It’ll be eight feet.
MRS. JENKIN-Right, but that’s the one that is closest to the lot line.
MR. LECCE-Correct.
MRS. JENKIN-My question is, why don’t you keep the one that you’re going to remove
and then move one farther south, so that you’re now in compliance, and you’re not as
close to the neighbor?
MR. LECCE-Because it’ll be too close to that wood deck that’s already on the property.
There’s an existing wood deck which is also a nonconforming use.
MRS. JENKIN-And you’re not allowed to be closer to that?
MR. LECCE-Well, to me it’ll be too crowded out to that wood deck. The deck is there to
sit there and enjoy the views of the lake. If I put that dock farther south, it’s going to
encroach on, I believe, the views of that wood deck. So I’m trying to keep it where it
currently is currently.
MRS. JENKIN-So the wood deck doesn’t have any access to the lake. It’s just sitting
there?
MR. LECCE-It just sits there.
MRS. JENKIN-Does it have railings around it or anything?
MR. LECCE-Yes. It has railings on four sides, three sides, four sides. So I’ve got two
nonconforming uses, which is the wood deck and the dock. I’m just not trying to crowd
that wood deck with the dock. So I could make it compliant the 20 feet off, but it’s going
to come very close to that wood deck.
MRS. JENKIN-How is the wood deck constructed?
MR. LECCE-It’s on piers, and it’s just wood on top of it, which is rotting, which has got to
be repaired.
MRS. JENKIN-So it doesn’t sound like it’s a big deal to move that.
MR. LECCE-I can’t move it. It’s a nonconforming use. I can’t move that deck, because if
I move it, I’ve just moved a nonconforming use. I’m in violation, it’s got to stay where it
is.
MRS. JENKIN-Because it’s too close to the lake?
MR. LECCE-Yes, correct.
MR. BROWN-You could remove it. You just can’t move it and construct it in a different
location.
MR. LECCE-Correct.
MR. BROWN-Unless you meet the setbacks.
MR. LECCE-Correct.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
MRS. JENKIN-Move it to a different location farther away from the lake you mean?
MR. BROWN-You could, but once you remove it, the reconstruction has to meet the
current setbacks.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. LECCE-So I’d have to put it 35 feet back from the lake, right, Craig?
MR. BROWN-Fifty.
MR. LECCE-Fifty, excuse me, fifty.
MRS. JENKIN-But with the covered deck top that you can sit on, do you need your wood
deck?
MR. LECCE-I would like to keep it, yes. It was very attractive. That’s one of the reasons
why I bought the property.
MR. ABBATE-All right, folks. Yes, Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-I just want to continue on that reasoning, or that line of questioning. Mrs.
Jenkin does offer a good point, in that now you’re going to have a new deck to sit on, on
top of the boathouse, right?
MR. LECCE-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-And it’s going to be just as attractive. She offers a good solution here. If
you’re going to remove one of the cribs, why not move it to a more southerly nature and
be more conforming? The reasoning because you want both decks is, you know, you’re
going to have a better deck now than you had before.
MR. LECCE-But I’m already nonconforming. So if I don’t get the sundeck, if we get
denied, the docks will still probably be put in its nonconforming location. So I’ll always be
nonconforming. Your question is why not make it conforming.
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. LECCE-If I make it conforming, I will lose my ability to use, I believe, the wood deck,
and it’s also going to be blocking views from the front of my house.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but you will increase, still, your usability by the deck that’s on top of
your boathouse.
MR. LECCE-I understand.
MR. BRYANT-So, I mean, I don’t understand.
MRS. JENKIN-Do you have the deck on your new house now, or patio out front?
MR. LECCE-There’ll be a patio. That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Garrand, please.
MR. GARRAND-Yes. It just seems like you’re taking the first sentence off the balancing
test, and, you know, blowing it out of the water here. I mean, that wood deck seems to
be in pretty much shambles as it is. You’re going to get an observation deck from your
new dock. I mean, it doesn’t seem as though you need both. You can just as easily
move it over. I mean, you’re gaining all this space on top of that deck. It just seems like
overkill here.
MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, ladies, do we have any other comments? Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Well, you had said that you still haven’t gotten pricing on that, on the
cribs?
MR. LECCE-On the crib, correct.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
MR. URRICO-So you’re really not sure how that’s going to work out.
MR. LECCE-Correct.
MR. URRICO-So it is a feasible alternative , is what we’re saying.
MR. LECCE-Eliminating the wood deck and moving?
MR. URRICO-Actually, you wouldn’t need, if you eliminated the wood deck and used the
sundeck in a compliant location, you wouldn’t need us.
MR. LECCE-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, ladies on the Board, do we have any other questions at this
particular time? All right. Then I’m going to move on, and I’m going to open the public
hearing for Area Variance No. 46-2007, and if any members of the public wish to be
heard on this, would you raise your hands, please. Yes, sir, would you come to the
table, please. Thank you. Speak into the microphone and be kind enough to tell us who
you are.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN OWEN
MR. OWEN-John Owen, 202 Lake Parkway. I sent you one letter. I’m going to going to
read the other one. Actually, it’s the same letter. Just cleaned up a little bit. “Sirs:
Concerning the matter of applicant Christine T. Lecce 46-2007, tax ID No. 226.19-1-68 &
86 variance for repair and reconstruction of existing dock and boathouse with sundeck
due to ice damage, I wish to submit the following for consideration. I am John Owen, tax
Id No. 226.19-1-87, and this is the next property going northeast. I have lived in this
home for 36 years and lived on Lake George for over 60 years. This side of Assembly
Point is on the main lake which is 1.33 miles wide and reaches all the way to the village
of Lake George, over 4 miles away, and subject to severe storms. I have seen winds
blow from the west or Northwest at over 60 miles an hour with waves over 4 feet high.
To own a boat in this area means whips and multiple lines to keep it away from smashing
into your dock, or a lift under the water to keep the boat high and dry. Between the lift or
whips and the width of the boat, approximately 9 feet of width is required in the water for
safe storage. Ideally 20’ is required for safe navigation between property lines. The
subject proposes rebuilding an existing dock which is over 50% destroyed by ice 2
winters ago. That dock is presently 3 feet off my line, and any boat of average width
would be encroaching on my property I do not want the liability or responsibility for
anything docked on that side of the subject’s dock. The subject’s survey map (Van
Dusen & Steves) gives a distorted description of what exists presently on the property.
First, the subject lot has identical lake frontage as I have: 150 feet tie line. As it winds
and turns the subject is showing 184 feet. The measurement from the corner of the
subject’s dock is 9 feet to the stake on shore, but if you extend the lot line into the water
the measurement by laser beam is 3 feet +/- from any point along the subject’s northeast
pier, and requires a 17’ variance not a 12’, again meaning an encroachment on my
property if anything is parked on that side of the subject’s dock. Certainly with 184 feet
as it winds and turns of lake frontage or 150 feet tie line there are other alternatives that
won’t devalue or increase the liability of my property. When the grand plan for the new
home was considered things like placement of windows, mechanicals, septic, egress,
ingress, and dock placement were all things considered before building, and it appears a
compliant location is available. I request all on the Board to physically see the location
before passing this variance. Thank you.”
MR. ABBATE-Do we have that in the record, Mr. Secretary, his letter?
MR. MC NULTY-He just read the letter that I had.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Fine. Thank you so very much.
MR. OWEN-Okay. If you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them.
MR. ABBATE-Well, do we have any questions for the member of the public?
MR. BRYANT-I do have a question. You stated in your letter that if you extend the
property line into the water, the further out, the dock is even closer to your property line.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
That’s not how it’s viewed on this. It almost looks like it’s parallel to the property line the
dock.
MR. OWEN-Yes, it’s parallel to the line, but if you take the line, which is what the Lake
George Park Commission does, extend it out into the lake, because you’ve had
navigation problems all around the lake, all through the years. There’s places, for
example, that have 30 feet of frontage, and because someone next door has a dock that
goes out in front of their property, obviously they’re blocked from building anything. So
obviously the rule is to try and prevent that from happening again. I’m just trying to keep
that dock off, I have no problem, when it was a preexisting nonconforming use, but now
that it’s been more than 50% damaged, and he’s got to replace the crib anyway, get him
off our line so I don’t have the responsibility, but you’re correct. It goes right out and
measure anywhere along his dock and it’s only three feet off my line, as the dock
presently exists. Now what he’s asking for is to cut it down to six feet, so obviously he’s
not going to require as much of a variance, but if he was to build what was there, he
would obviously have a problem.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. OWEN-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Do we have any other
members of the public who would like to address Area Variance No. 46-2007?
Apparently we do not, so I’m going to continue. Would you like to comment on the
comments that were made?
MR. LECCE-Yes, I would. Just going back to the survey Mr. Bryant talked about. The
survey shows a six foot existing dock that’s currently there now. Even though it was
destroyed by 50%, I’m still allowed to build that dock in the same location that it currently
is right now. So it would have the same side yard, and there’s no restriction against me
from doing so, as long as I do it within 18 months. Is that right, Craig?
MR. BROWN-As is.
MR. LECCE-As is.
MR. ABBATE-As is.
MR. LECCE-So what I’m trying to do here is I’m pushing it two feet away from the
property line with the new dock, okay, giving them another two feet. So I think I’m
making this more compliant than what it currently is, if I were to build it the way it was
destroyed. My coverage is less. I’m going from 790 to 700. The peak was 16 foot. Now
it’s going to be 14 feet. So I’m bringing this dock more compliant to the Zoning Code
than it would be if I rebuilt to where it was prior to construction, and I understand your
comment. I can, you know, get rid of the wood deck and make it compliant. Well, the
wood deck’s very important to me and I don’t want to get rid of the wood deck. So, I’m
not trying to play hardball here. I’m just saying, I would be just, I would just have to put it
back where it was and the way it was before it was destroyed, and that’s okay. I just
thought it would look nicer with a deck. The views would open up for everybody
involved, including my neighbors, but, you know, I understand the pros and cons of
variances, and I’d be stuck putting it back where it was, and that’s fine.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask Staff a question?
MR. ABBATE-By all means.
MR. BRYANT-The neighbor mentions that it was destroyed two winters ago. Have we
already gone beyond the time limit, or are we still within the time limit?
MR. BROWN-Well, 18 months from the time of destruction is the time that you have to
replace it in kind. I don’t know exactly what the date is, and I’m sure if we ask the
applicant, he could produce documentation as of when it was destroyed, and if it’s within
the 18 months, he’s entitled. If he’s beyond 18 months, he’s not entitled.
MR. LECCE-I can assure Mr. Bryant it’s within the 18 months.
MR. BROWN-As of this application, he’s not proposing to do that. This is a new.
MR. BRYANT-I understand that, but two winters ago is more than 18 months.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
MR. LECCE-April of ’06 it was destroyed.
MR. BROWN-He’ll have to document 18 months if he wants to go with that rebuild
scenario.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Do we have any other questions? All right. Members, I’m going
to ask you again to take a look at this Area Variance No. 46-2007, and offer your
comments, and the comments offered are directed to the Chairman, not subject to
debate. So I’m going to ask for a volunteer to start out with comments concerning 46-
2007. Do we have one?
MRS. JENKIN-I could do that.
MR. ABBATE-Would you do that. Please.
MRS. JENKIN-Because you’re going to be removing one of the cribs and moving it
farther, I would feel that you do have a feasible alternative, that you can do something to
make yourself a good neighbor, to take yourself away from the lot line and still improve
the quality of the lake in that you’re making, when we have a chance to make things
conforming for the lake, it’s a good idea to do that. Now there’s many, many
nonconforming places on the lake because they were built so long ago. You have a
beautiful new home, and it would seem to me that you could also make your dock a very
nice dock that it looks like the plans are nice plans, but you could also make the effort to
make that conforming now, too, since you’re building a new dock. I think it’s substantial
relief because you are so close to the lot line and you have all this other space that you
could use for a dock. I think the effect on the neighbor, because you’re so close, it is an
encroachment, it is a liability if you put boats on that side of him. I agree with that. I
think it’s a self-created difficulty, and I would be opposed to this motion.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. Mr. McNulty?
MR. MC NULTY-I’m inclined to agree with what’s just been said. I think in this case,
especially since at least one of the cribs has got to be disturbed anyway, and given the
amount of shoreline that’s available in this instance, I can’t see the justification to stay
right close to the lot line, and whether we’re talking about six feet or nine feet or three
feet, I think the effect is about the same, and I think the commenter that was speaking
against this request had a point, that, you know, unless the applicant were to not dock
anything on that side of the dock, evermore, he’s intruding on the neighbor, and this is
the opportunity to get over where the dock belongs. So, even though it’s going to cost
more, I think that’s the answer. So I’m going to be opposed.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Garrand, please.
MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Going through the balancing test, I see
where benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. I also feel that
this is a substantial request, although it won’t have any adverse physical or
environmental impact on the neighborhood. Also, the applicant’s the one choosing the
position for this crib dock. It can definitely be moved. He’s also choosing to keep the
wooden deck, which at this point looks very, very dilapidated. I do believe this is also
self-created. So at this point I wouldn’t be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question, first?
MR. ABBATE-By all means.
MR. BRYANT-In this ice storm event, can you tell me if the cribs were damaged at all?
MR. LECCE-There are two cribs that are still in the water with no tops on them, the
decking’s off them.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, but the cribs were not damaged is what you’re saying.
MR. LECCE-If they were, they’re repairable. They’re not that bad. Yes.
MR. BRYANT-I have to agree with what the other Board members have said, and I
understand that you can rebuild your dock in the old place and the old location, and I
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
understand that completely. However, when we’re working with new construction, we
have the opportunity to look at it freshly, and it is new construction. We have the
opportunity to make things right. This is the opportunity, since you’re going to move one
of the cribs completely, we may as well do it right, and we have this opportunity, and
we’re probably never going to have this opportunity again, unless there’s another major
ice storm. So my suggestion is that maybe we should think about taking this opportunity,
making it right, and we’ll move on, but, Mr. Chairman, as the application is presented, I’m
opposed.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m pretty much in agreement with everybody else. I like the fact that
you’re bringing the height back down into compliance, but I think as long as we’re looking
at bringing things into compliance, I think the opportunity is there. I understand you have
the prerogative of keeping things the way they are, rebuilding the dock as it is, keeping
your wood deck, or you can trade it in for a new dock with a sundeck on top of it in a
compliant location. I understand you don’t have all the facts and figures in yet. So
maybe that’s a possibility that you’ll consider if you think about the other, the alternative
means that are necessary after it’s looked at, but as currently put together, I would not be
in favor of this.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Yes. Thank you. I have to agree with my fellow Board members. I think t
that this is new construction and with 150 feet along the shoreline, asking for 60% relief
is excessive, and I would be against it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. I would have to agree, sir, with my fellow Board
members, and I, at this point, would be opposed to it. However, at this point, it appears
that the Board has considered your arguments and finds them without merit. Now, to
provide you with an opportunity for a fair and impartial hearing, may I suggest perhaps
you might want to consider tabling your application, if you will, to take into consideration
what we’ve talked about, or perhaps just withdraw your appeal. It doesn’t make any
difference, and you can do that without prejudice. These are merely suggestions on my
part. Would you like to table this, to think about what we said, or would you just like to
withdraw, or go for a vote?
MR. LECCE-But if I table this and follow your positions, I don’t need any variance. So
I’m better off taking the vote.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. LECCE-I know what the option’s going to be, but.
MR. ABBATE-It’s not a problem. Okay. Did I close the public hearing? If I didn’t, the
public hearing is now closed for Area Variance No. 46-2007.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And at this point I’m going to request a motion for Area Variance No. 46-
2007. Do I have one, please? I need a motion, ladies and gentlemen.
MR. BRYANT-I’ll make a motion.
MR. ABBATE-Please.
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2007 CHRISTINE T. LECCE, Introduced
by Allan Bryant who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
208 Lake Parkway on Assembly Point. The applicant proposes construction of a 700
square foot dock with a 912 square foot sundeck. Relief required. The applicant
requests 12 feet of relief from the minimum 20 foot side yard setback requirement for a
dock. The proposed sundeck would be located at a 14 foot setback. Criteria for
considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267, New York State Town Law.
Benefit to the applicant. The applicant would be permitted to construct the desired
structure at a preferred size and location. Feasible alternatives. With the removal of one
of the existing cribs, a feasible alternative is to place that crib south of the other existing
crib and construct the dock in that location, which would be much more compliant. Since
this is new construction, it would give the applicant the opportunity to bring the property
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
into a more compliant situation. Is the relief requested substantial relative to the
Ordinance? Twelve feet of relief from the twenty foot minimum requirement may be
interpreted as moderate to substantial at 60%. Effects on the neighborhood or
community? There are no letters of support. One of the adjoining neighbors did appear
and spoke negatively about the application, because of the closeness of the dock to the
property line. Is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty can be interpreted as self-
created. So, for these reasons, I move that we deny Area Variance No. 46-2007.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Bryant,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote to disapprove Area Variance No. 46-2007 is seven yes, zero no.
Area Variance No. 46-2007, therefore, is disapproved. Thank you very much.
MR. LECCE-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-One comment, Mr. Zoning Administrator, you made a note for Glen at
Hiland Meadows for August hearing, right?
MR. BROWN-I noted that you did that. You didn’t pick a date. You just picked August.
MR. ABBATE-Probably the latest. I don’t know. I don’t have the calendar in front of me.
MR. BROWN-We’ll figure it out. I mean, you already made the motion.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Let’s see what comes up. Thank you very much.
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, before you break up, too. I almost forgot about, one of
these letters that we read at the very beginning, request from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart
regarding Ahlers, requested tabling until the September 2007 hearings, and I don’t think
we actually took formal action on that.
MR. ABBATE-We did not do that, and that was Area Variance No. what?
MR. MC NULTY-43-2007.
MR. ABBATE-2007. Okay. This is absolutely correct. We do have correspondence
requesting that Area Variance No. 43-2007 be moved to the September meeting, and as
such, I will move a motion.
MR. URRICO-Can I just make a suggestion that we make it a September 2007 meeting?
thth
MRS. JENKIN-We could do the 19 or the 26.
thth
MR. ABBATE-19 or 26.
MR. URRICO-I don’t care which one it is, but say a rather than the, in case there’s more
than one.
th
MR. ABBATE-How about, Craig, do you object by any chance to the 19 of September?
MR. BROWN-Perfect.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2007 ROLF W. AND LUISE AHLERS,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
105 Knox Road. Tabled to the September 19, 2007 hearing.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Jenkin,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/07)
MR. ABBATE-The vote is seven yes, zero no to move Area Variance No. 43-2007 to the
19 September 2007 hearing. Thank you very much. This hearing is adjourned.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Charles Abbate, Chairman
44